Puyat vs. Puyat

Collusion in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage must be proved with adequate evidence and cannot be presumed merely from the respondent’s failure to testify or the parties’ mutual desire to nullify the marriage; furthermore, psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code requires clear and convincing proof of a grave, antecedent, and incurable personality disorder that renders a spouse incapable of fulfilling essential marital obligations, and the incapacity of one spouse is sufficient to nullify the marriage.

Gil Miguel Wenceslao T. Puyat (petitioner) and Ma. Teresa Jacqueline R. Puyat (respondent) were civilly married on February 24, 1978, followed by a church wedding on April 8, 1978. At the time, petitioner was 16 years old and had not finished high school, while respondent was 17. They had two sons. Due to immaturity, petty quarrels, and jealousy, they separated on February 1, 1982. Petitioner subsequently filed for divorce in California, obtaining a decree on September 18, 1985, and a Marital Settlement Agreement providing for child support and waiving spousal support. He remarried thereafter. On February 22, 1994, petitioner filed a petition before the Regional Trial Court of Makati seeking a declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of his own psychological incapacity, which he alleged was latent at the inception of the marriage but became manifest thereafter. Respondent opposed the petition, alleging physical violence and womanizing by petitioner, and demanded child support, spousal support, and reimbursement of expenses.

• The Marriage and Separation: The parties were civilly married on February 24, 1978, and had a church wedding on April 8, 1978, when they were 16 and 17 years old, respectively. They had two sons, Gil Carlos and Juan Miguel. Their married life was marked by quarrels and jealousy, leading to their separation on February 1, 1982.
• Divorce and Remarriage: Petitioner obtained a divorce decree from the Superior Court of California on September 18, 1985, along with a Marital Settlement Agreement stipulating child support of $350 per child per month (with 10% annual escalation) and a waiver of spousal support. Petitioner remarried Mercedes M. Lacson.
• Petition for Nullity: On February 22, 1994, petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity before the RTC of Makati, alleging he suffered from psychological incapacity that was latent at the time of marriage but manifested thereafter due to marital stresses.
• Respondent’s Counterclaims: Respondent alleged that petitioner engaged in womanizing and physical violence. She claimed she was pressured to sign the divorce papers and demanded spousal support of P30,000 per month, child support of $57,000, and reimbursement of P5,000,000 for expenses. She contended that petitioner paid child support only irregularly until 1989 and then stopped completely.
• Psychiatric and Psychological Evidence: Petitioner presented Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, a psychiatrist, and Dr. Natividad A. Dayan, a psychologist. Dr. Villegas personally evaluated only petitioner and concluded he suffered from Inadequate Personality Disorder with Narcissistic features, while respondent suffered from Immature Personality Disorder, rendering both psychologically incapacitated. Dr. Dayan evaluated petitioner and his two sons and concluded both spouses suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder (301.81) and Partner Relational Problem (V61.1), which she described as grave, untreatable, and deeply rooted.
• Trial Proceedings: The trial spanned over a decade. On January 12, 2004, the RTC denied respondent’s motion to postpone the hearing due to alleged sickness because no medical certificate was presented and her counsel refused to assure the court she would testify if given another chance. The case was submitted for decision.
• Lower Court Rulings: The RTC declared the marriage null and void ab initio based on mutual psychological incapacity. The CA reversed, finding collusion because respondent failed to assail the nullity in her brief and motion for reconsideration, focusing only on her counterclaims, and because she failed to testify. The CA also found no psychological incapacity existed.

• Lack of Collusion: Collusion must be proved with adequate evidence and cannot be lightly presumed. The report of Assistant Prosecutor Andres N. Marcos finding no collusion enjoys the presumption of regularity. Respondent’s failure to testify was attributable to her own counsel’s failure to provide a medical certificate or assurance of her appearance, not to collusion. Her active participation for over a decade—filing pleadings, motions, and cross-examining witnesses—negates any inference of collusion.
• Psychological Incapacity: Clear and convincing evidence established his psychological incapacity through the expert findings of Dr. Dayan and Dr. Villegas. Both concluded he suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder that is grave, deeply rooted in his childhood (due to his father’s infidelity and overindulgence), and incurable. The incapacity existed prior to the marriage but became manifest only after solemnization due to marital stresses.

• Agreement on Lack of Collusion: Respondent agreed with petitioner that there was no collusion between them.
• Insufficient Evidence of Mutual Incapacity: Insufficient evidence existed to warrant a declaration of nullity based on mutual psychological incapacity. If the marriage were to be declared null and void, it should be due solely to petitioner’s psychological incapacity, not hers, as she maintained she was not psychologically incapacitated.

• Collusion: Whether there was collusion between the parties to justify the dismissal of the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
• Psychological Incapacity: Whether the totality of evidence presented warrants the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

• Collusion: No collusion existed between the parties. The CA erred in presuming collusion from respondent’s procedural defaults—specifically, her failure to testify and her failure to assail the nullity decree in her brief and motion for reconsideration while pursuing counterclaims. Collusion must be proven by adequate evidence, not presumed. The public prosecutor’s investigation report finding no collusion is entitled to credence. Respondent’s active participation in the litigation for over a decade, including cross-examination of witnesses and filing of numerous pleadings, sufficiently refutes any allegation of collusion. Mutual desire to nullify a marriage does not equate to collusion to trick the court.
• Psychological Incapacity: The marriage was declared null and void ab initio. Clear and convincing evidence established that petitioner suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder and Partner Relational Problem. The disorder is grave, rooted in his history antedating the marriage (poor identification with father figure, psychological turbulence from parental infidelity, and overindulgence leading to impulsive marriage at age 16), and incurable in the legal sense (enduring and persistent). While expert opinion is not mandatory, the evaluations of Dr. Dayan and Dr. Villegas were accorded weight as they were thorough and corroborated by petitioner’s testimony. Only petitioner’s incapacity was proven; respondent’s alleged incapacity was not established as the experts did not personally evaluate her. Nonetheless, the incapacity of one spouse is sufficient to nullify the marriage.
• Capacity to File: Either spouse, including the one suffering from psychological incapacity, may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage pursuant to Section 2(a) of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC.
• Child Support: Petitioner was ordered to pay child support arrears from 1989 (when payments totally stopped) to April 30, 1993 (when custody of the children was transferred to him), computed in accordance with the Marital Settlement Agreement’s 10% annual escalation clause, totaling US$43,083.88. Spousal support was denied as the Agreement waived it, and respondent had remarried.

• Collusion in Nullity Proceedings — Collusion between parties in a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage must be proved with adequate, positive evidence and cannot be presumed merely from the respondent’s failure to testify, her focus on counterclaims, or the parties’ mutual desire to obtain a nullity decree. The State has a duty under Article 48 of the Family Code to protect the institution of marriage by ensuring the public prosecutor investigates and reports on the existence of collusion.
• Psychological Incapacity (Article 36) — Psychological incapacity requires proof of a disorder that is (1) grave or serious, rendering the party incapable of carrying out ordinary marital duties; (2) rooted in the party’s history antedating the marriage (juridical antecedence), though overt manifestations may emerge after; and (3) incurable in the legal sense, meaning the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner that the union inevitably results in irreparable breakdown. Expert opinion is not mandatory; lay witnesses may testify to observed behavior demonstrating the spouse’s personality structure.
• Incapacity of One Spouse — The psychological incapacity of one spouse is sufficient to declare the marriage null and void; it is not required that both parties be incapacitated.
• Right to File Petition — A petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage may be filed by either the husband or the wife, without distinction as to which spouse is psychologically incapacitated.

• "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."
• "[I]ncurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. x x x This means that the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage."
• "Simply because they mutually desire to have their marriage declared null and void does not mean that they have colluded to trick the court. To rule otherwise would be to unfairly foreclose the remedy under Article 36 to all individuals who are similarly situated."

• Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359 (May 11, 2021) — Clarified that psychological incapacity refers to a personality structure making compliance with marital obligations impossible, and defined incurability in the legal sense as an enduring and persistent incapacity relative to the specific partner.
• Juliano-Llave v. Republic, 662 Phil. 203 (2011) — Held that a respondent’s failure to file an answer or present evidence, attributable to her own dilatory tactics, does not equate to collusion and should not benefit her to the prejudice of the other party.
• Castillo v. Republic, 805 Phil. 209 (2017) — Reiterated the elements of psychological incapacity (gravity, juridical antecedence, incurability) and the standard of clear and convincing evidence required to prove it.

• Article 36, Family Code — Defines psychological incapacity as a ground for declaring a marriage void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization.
• Article 48, Family Code — Mandates that in annulment or declaration of absolute nullity cases, the court shall order the public prosecutor to appear on behalf of the State to prevent collusion and ensure evidence is not fabricated or suppressed.
• Section 3(e), Rule 9, Rules of Court — Requires the public prosecutor to investigate collusion if the defending party in a nullity case fails to answer.
• Section 9, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages) — Outlines the public prosecutor’s duty to submit a report on collusion within one month, which is a condition sine qua non for setting the case for pre-trial.
• Section 2(a), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Provides that either the husband or the wife may file a petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage.

Gesmundo, C.J., Caguioa, Zalameda, and Gaerlan, JJ.