Najera vs. Najera

A marriage cannot be declared void under Article 36 of the Family Code where the totality of evidence fails to prove that the alleged psychological incapacity was medically or clinically identified, grave, rooted in a pre-marital cause, and permanent or incurable; evidence of physical violence and abandonment supports only legal separation under Article 55. A church matrimonial tribunal's decree of nullity is not controlling and must yield to the evidence formally offered in the civil case.

Petitioner Digna A. Najera and respondent Eduardo J. Najera were spouses, childless, married on January 31, 1988 at Saint Andrew the Apostle Church in Bugallon, Pangasinan. Their dispute concerned the validity of that marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, which voids a marriage where a party was psychologically incapacitated at the time of celebration to comply with the essential marital obligations, and alternatively legal separation under the Family Code. Article 36 was derived from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, and interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal are given great respect but are not controlling.

Digna A. Najera and Eduardo J. Najera were married on January 31, 1988 by Rev. Father Isidro Palinar, Jr. at Saint Andrew the Apostle Church in Bugallon, Pangasinan, and they were childless. At the time of the marriage, Digna was employed with the Special Services Division of the Provincial Government of Pangasinan, while Eduardo was jobless and dependent on her for support. With the help of Digna's elder brother, Eduardo obtained employment as a seaman in 1988 through the Intercrew Shipping Agency. While employed as a seaman, he did not give Digna sufficient financial support, and she relied on her own efforts and the help of her parents. As a seaman, Eduardo was away from home for nine to ten months each year.

In May 1989, when Eduardo came home from a ship voyage, he began quarreling with Digna and falsely accused her of having an affair. He smoked marijuana and tried to force her into it; when she refused, he insulted her and uttered unprintable words against her. He would leave the house and return drunk. In 1990, the spouses purchased a lot from their earnings, and in 1991 they constructed a house on it. When Eduardo returned from another ship voyage in April 1994, he again quarreled with Digna, remained jealous, came home drunk, and smoked marijuana.

On July 3, 1994, Digna and Eduardo had been invited to a party by the boyfriend of Digna's sister, but Eduardo did not allow Digna to go with him. When he arrived home around midnight, Digna asked him about the party, the persons who attended, and the ladies he danced with; he did not answer and went to the kitchen. When she asked again, he quarreled with her, accused her of having an affair, and suddenly slapped and boxed her, causing her eyes to be bloodied. When she opened her eyes, she saw Eduardo holding a bolo and attempting to kill her; she parried the attack with her left arm and sustained injuries on different parts of her body. Eduardo became nervous when he saw her bloodied and went out. She hid from him; when she heard him start the motorcycle, she left her hiding place, boarded a bus, alighted in Mangatarem, Pangasinan, and went to the clinic of Dr. Padlan, who sutured her wounds. After a few hours, she returned home to find the house locked; she called her parents, who lived about 300 meters away, and her brother entered through the ceiling to open the door. Their personal belongings, including her ATM card and jewelry, were gone. Digna reported the incident at the Bugallon Police Station. Eduardo never returned home thereafter; he stayed with his mother in Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan. Digna later learned that he went abroad again, that she received no allotment from him, and that he had jumped ship while it was anchored in Los Angeles, California, U.S.A.

Digna testified that her parents were happily married, while Eduardo's parents were separated and his brothers were also separated from their respective wives. She also filed a petition for annulment of her marriage with the Matrimonial Tribunal of the Diocese of Alaminos, Pangasinan on the ground of Eduardo's psychological incapacity. At the trial, she presented her mother, Celedonia Aldana; psychologist Cristina R. Gates; and SPO1 Sonny Dela Cruz of the PNP, Bugallon, Pangasinan. Psychologist Gates interviewed Digna but not Eduardo, who was abroad. She confirmed her Psychological Report, which concluded that Eduardo was afflicted with Borderline Personality Disorder under the DSM IV, marked by instability in interpersonal relationships, marred self-image, self-destructive tendencies, and uncontrollable impulses; that his psychological impairment was traced to his parents' separation and his mother's meddling and antedated the marriage; and that his alcohol and marijuana use rendered the impairment grave and irreversible, warranting annulment. Gates testified that the chances of curability were nil but also that curability depended on whether the established organic damage was minimal, and she admitted that she found no organic cause, did not interview Eduardo's family, did not see Eduardo, and relied on Digna's disclosures. SPO1 Dela Cruz testified that on July 3, 1994, he received Digna's complaint that Eduardo arrived home under the influence of liquor, mauled her without provocation, and tried to kill her, and that the complaint was entered in the police blotter.

The trial court found that petitioner failed to prove with certainty that Eduardo's alleged personality disorder was incurable, and the Court of Appeals found that Psychologist Gates' conclusion was unscientific and unreliable because it was based on facts relayed to her by Digna and not on her personal knowledge and evaluation of Eduardo. The Court of Appeals also found that the evidence of Eduardo's physical violence and abandonment supported legal separation only, not annulment under Article 36.

• Failure to Consider Church Tribunal Decision: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals failed to take into consideration the Decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, contrary to the guidelines in Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 268 SCRA 198; her counsel sought to admit the tribunal decision on February 11, 2004, twelve days before the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision on February 23, 2004.
• Root Cause Proven: Petitioner contended that her evidence proved the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity, which was his dysfunctional family background; with such background, respondent could not have known the obligations he was assuming, particularly the duty of complying with the obligations essential to marriage.
• Same Factual Basis as Tribunal: Petitioner maintained that the factual basis of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal's decision was practically the same set of facts established by her evidence before the trial court, and therefore the same conclusion ought to have been rendered by the Court.
• Credence to Expert: Petitioner argued that credence ought to be given to the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina R. Gates as an expert in Psychology.

• Denial and Counter-Allegations: Respondent denied the material allegations in the petition and averred that petitioner was incurably immature, of dubious integrity, with very low morality, and guilty of infidelity.
• Property Claim: Respondent claimed that the subject house and lot were acquired through his sole effort and money.
• Counterclaim for Damages: Respondent prayed for the award of P200,000.00 as moral damages, P45,000.00 as attorney's fees, and P1,000.00 as appearance fee for every scheduled hearing.

• Totality of Evidence / Article 36: Whether the totality of petitioner's evidence proved that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting annulment under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Root Cause of Psychological Incapacity: Whether petitioner's evidence proved the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity.
• National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Decision: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in failing to consider the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal's decision, contrary to the guidelines in Republic vs. Court of Appeals.
• Expert Testimony: Whether credence ought to be given to the conclusion of Psychologist Cristina R. Gates as an expert in Psychology.

• Totality of Evidence / Article 36: No. The totality of evidence failed to prove psychological incapacity; the evidence of physical violence and abandonment supported only legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code, not annulment under Article 36.
• Root Cause of Psychological Incapacity: No. The alleged root cause was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
• National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Decision: No. The Court of Appeals considered the tribunal decision in its resolution on reconsideration; the decision was not controlling and was based on Canon 1095(2), not Article 36, and on evidence not formally offered in the civil case.
• Expert Testimony: No. The psychologist's conclusion was unscientific and unreliable because it was based on petitioner's relayed facts, not personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent; incurability was not established with certainty.

• Totality of Evidence / Article 36: The Court applied the guidelines in Republic vs. Court of Appeals. The burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff, and any doubt must be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. The incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, be medically or clinically permanent or incurable, and be grave enough to disable the party from assuming the essential marital obligations under Articles 68 to 71 and Articles 220, 221, and 225 of the Family Code. The Court found that the totality of petitioner's evidence failed to satisfy these requirements. The alleged root cause—respondent's dysfunctional family background—was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be permanent or incurable. The evidence of physical violence and abandonment, while established, constituted grounds for legal separation under Article 55, not psychological incapacity under Article 36.

• Root Cause of Psychological Incapacity: The root cause of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Psychologist Gates' conclusion was based on facts relayed to her by petitioner, not on personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent; she did not interview respondent or his family and did not see him. Her testimony that the chances of curability were nil was qualified by her statement that curability depended on whether the established organic damage was minimal, and she admitted that she found no organic cause and that respondent's disorder was only possibly caused by habitual drinking and marijuana. Thus, the alleged root cause was not medically or clinically identified with certainty, and its incurable character was not established.

• National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal Decision: Petitioner's argument was without merit. Although the Court of Appeals did not have the opportunity to consider the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal's decision in its February 23, 2004 Decision, it considered that decision in its August 5, 2004 Resolution denying reconsideration. The Court of Appeals correctly held that the tribunal's decision was based on a different set of evidence—including testimonies of a sister-in-law and friends not presented before the trial court—and that under Rule 132, Section 34, the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. Moreover, the tribunal's decree of nullity was based on Canon 1095(2), which refers to grave lack of discretion of judgment, not Canon 1095(3), which refers to causes of a psychological nature and is the source of Article 36. Thus, the tribunal's decision did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36.

• Expert Testimony: No credence could be given to Psychologist Gates' conclusion as an expert because it was unscientific and unreliable. Her findings were based on petitioner's disclosures rather than personal knowledge and evaluation of respondent. She did not examine respondent, who was abroad, and did not interview his family. Her conclusion that respondent was psychologically incapacitated was therefore not adequately established. While actual medical examination is not required, the totality of evidence must adequately establish the party's psychological condition; here, it did not.

• Article 36 Psychological Incapacity — Article 36 of the Family Code voids a marriage contracted by a party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations, even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization. The Court applied the guidelines in Republic vs. Court of Appeals:
  • Burden of proof: The burden to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff; any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.
  • Root cause: The root cause must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision.
  • Timing: The incapacity must be proven to exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage.
  • Permanence/incurability: The incapacity must be medically or clinically permanent or incurable, whether absolutely or relatively in relation to the other spouse.
  • Gravity: The illness must be grave enough to disable the party from assuming the essential obligations of marriage; mild peculiarities, mood changes, and occasional emotional outbursts are not sufficient.
  • Essential marital obligations: These are those embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards husband and wife, and Articles 220, 221, and 225 as regards parents and children.
  • Church tribunal interpretations: Interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal are not controlling or decisive but should be given great respect, subject to the law on evidence.
  • State counsel: The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State, and no decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification.
  • Gravity, Juridical Antecedence, and Incurability — Psychological incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court found that these requirements were not satisfied because the alleged root cause was not sufficiently proven by experts and was not shown to be permanent or incurable.
  • Medical Examination Not Indispensable — Actual medical examination of the person alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is not required; the root cause may be medically or clinically identified, and the totality of evidence may suffice if it adequately establishes the party's psychological condition. In this case, however, the totality of evidence was insufficient.
  • Church Tribunal Decisions Not Controlling — Decisions of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal are entitled to great respect but are not controlling or decisive. They must yield to the law on evidence, including the rule that courts shall consider no evidence not formally offered. The tribunal's decree was also based on Canon 1095(2), not Canon 1095(3), and therefore did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36.
  • Legal Separation vs. Annulment — Repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct, attempt against the life of the petitioner, and abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation under Article 55 of the Family Code. They do not, by themselves, establish psychological incapacity under Article 36.

• "The main issue is whether or not the totality of petitioner's evidence was able to prove that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage warranting the annulment of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code." — This passage frames the central issue and shows that the Court evaluated the evidence under the Article 36 framework rather than treating the case as an ordinary factual dispute.
• "The root cause of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity was not sufficiently proven by experts or shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable." — This is the ratio decidendi on the failure of the annulment claim: the alleged psychological incapacity did not meet the required root-cause, permanence, and incurability standards.
• "The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that the evidence presented by petitioner in regard to the physical violence or grossly abusive conduct of respondent toward petitioner and respondent's abandonment of petitioner without justifiable cause for more than one year are grounds for legal separation only and not for annulment of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code." — This passage distinguishes legal separation grounds under Article 55 from the stricter requirements for annulment under Article 36.
• "It must be pointed out that in this case, the basis of the declaration of nullity of marriage by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal is not the third paragraph of Canon 1095 which mentions causes of a psychological nature, but the second paragraph of Canon 1095 which refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations to be mutually given and accepted." — This passage explains why the church tribunal's decree did not support the civil annulment claim: the tribunal relied on a different canonical ground from the one underlying Article 36.

• Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 335 Phil. 664, 676-680 (1997); also cited as 268 SCRA 198 — The controlling precedent laying down the guidelines for interpreting and applying Article 36 of the Family Code. The Court applied these guidelines and found petitioner's evidence insufficient.
• Santos vs. Court of Appeals — Cited in the guidelines as having earlier mandated the three basic requirements of psychological incapacity: gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability.
• Santos vs. Santos, G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20 — Cited for the deliberations of the Family Code Revision Committee on Article 36 and its relation to Canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law.
• Marcos vs. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840, 850 (2000) — Cited for the rule that actual medical examination is not required and that the root cause may be medically or clinically identified; the totality of evidence may suffice if it adequately establishes psychological incapacity.
• Choa vs. Choa, 441 Phil. 175, 191 (2002) — Cited in support of the finding that Psychologist Gates' conclusion was unscientific and unreliable.
• Manzano vs. Perez, 362 SCRA 430 (2001) — Cited for the elementary rule that judgments must be based on the evidence presented before the court.

• Article 36, Family Code — Provides that a marriage contracted by a party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations shall be void even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization. The Court applied this provision and held that petitioner failed to prove the required psychological incapacity.
• Article 55, Family Code — Enumerates the grounds for legal separation, including repeated physical violence or grossly abusive conduct, attempt against the life of the petitioner, and abandonment without justifiable cause for more than one year. The Court held that the evidence established these grounds for legal separation only, not annulment under Article 36.
• Rule 132, Section 34, Rules of Evidence — States that the court shall consider no evidence which has not been formally offered. The Court of Appeals relied on this rule in refusing to give credence to the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal's decision, which was based on evidence not presented before the trial court.
• Canon 1095, New Code of Canon Law — Paragraph (2) refers to those who suffer from a grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and obligations; paragraph (3) refers to those who, because of causes of a psychological nature, are unable to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Article 36 was derived from Canon 1095(3), but the tribunal's decree was based on Canon 1095(2); thus, the tribunal's decision did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36.
• Section 17, Rule 14, Rules of Court — Cited in the procedural history as the basis for the RTC's order allowing service by publication on respondent.

Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., and Nachura, JJ., concurred.