Tongol vs. Tongol

A diagnosis of a personality disorder, without proof that it is grave, rooted before the marriage, permanent or incurable, and so incapacitating as to render the spouse truly incognitive of the essential marital obligations, is insufficient to void a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Mere irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, and disagreements over money or business management do not constitute psychological incapacity.

Orlando G. Tongol and Filipinas M. Tongol were married on August 27, 1967 and had four children. Their marriage was governed by the Family Code, Article 36 of which permits a declaration of absolute nullity where a party was psychologically incapacitated at the time of celebration to comply with essential marital obligations. The Supreme Court’s guidelines in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina and the later Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC, supply the interpretive framework. Prior to the nullity suit, the spouses had obtained a judgment dissolving their conjugal partnership of gains.

Orlando G. Tongol and Filipinas M. Tongol were married on August 27, 1967. Their union produced four children: Crisanto, born in 1968; Olivia, born in 1969; Frederick, born in 1971; and Ma. Cecilia, born in 1972. According to Orlando, he and Filipinas married over the objection of the latter’s family, and their marriage was not happy because of her parents’ continued interference and attempts to break up their union. He alleged that Filipinas treated him with contempt and without the love and respect due him as her husband, ridiculed him when he started a junk shop business, and later interfered in the operation of his pharmaceutical company. She quarreled with him, suspected that the income of the business was being given to his relatives, and their continued fighting affected their children. Efforts at reconciliation proved futile, and in 1990 Orlando decided to live separately from Filipinas.

On May 13, 1994, Orlando and Filipinas filed a petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, which was granted in a Judgment issued by the RTC of Makati City, Branch 143, on April 24, 1995. On August 19, 1996, Orlando filed before the RTC of Makati City a verified petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with Filipinas on the ground that she was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. In her Answer with Counter-Petition, Filipinas admitted that efforts at reconciliation had been fruitless and that their marriage was a failure, but she claimed that the marriage failed because it was Orlando who was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his obligations as a married man.

Evidence for Orlando consisted of his own testimony, that of his sister Angelina Tongol, and of Annaliza Guevara, an employee in the pharmaceutical company owned by the spouses. Orlando also presented Dr. Cecilia Villegas, a psychiatrist who conducted a psychological examination of both parties, and submitted documents evidencing their marriage, the birth of their four children, the RTC decision granting the petition for dissolution of their conjugal partnership of gains, and Dr. Villegas’s written evaluation. Evidence for Filipinas consisted only of her own testimony.

Dr. Villegas’s written evaluation stated that Filipinas belonged to a matriarchal family where the mother assumed a more active and dominant role; that Filipinas was left to the care of an aunt and developed a basic feeling of rejection; that her operating intellectual ability was low-average; that sudden change overwhelmed her; that when seized by an impulse she was likely to give way; that even minor pressures upset her and her emotional control could not be relied upon; that in marriage, when her husband showed a good relationship with their employees, especially females, she became suspicious, jealous, and threatened; and that she coped with her uncomfortable feelings by exhibiting temper tantrums, irritability, and dominance. Dr. Villegas diagnosed Filipinas as suffering from an Inadequate Personality Disorder, with hysterical coloring, which rendered her psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. Dr. Villegas also stated that Orlando was suffering from some depressive features, which seemed to be a recent development as a result of marital problems.

In her testimony, Dr. Villegas explained that inadequate personality disorder means that Filipinas could not function confidently in all aspects of her life and was always in doubt of her own capabilities, while hysterical coloring meant an exaggeration of her psychological reactions to stress. She testified that Filipinas’s reactions were due to her basic feelings of rejection and that she recommended annulment because the marriage would only cause suffering to both, since on the part of Filipinas the condition was “more or less permanent” and Orlando was also suffering from some depression. The RTC and the CA gave credence to Dr. Villegas’s conclusion that Filipinas suffered from Inadequate Personality Disorder, but found that the behavior exhibited did not amount to psychological incapacity under Article 36. The testimonies of both petitioner and respondent and the other witnesses regarding their differences and misunderstandings centered on their disagreement regarding the management of their business, and Filipinas herself claimed in her Memorandum that their quarrels arose solely from their disagreement on how to run their business. No evidence was presented to show that Filipinas had been remiss in performing her obligations toward their children.

• Psychological Incapacity and Expert Evidence: Petitioner argued that the evidence, particularly Dr. Villegas’s findings, established that respondent suffered from Inadequate Personality Disorder with hysterical coloring, which rendered her psychologically incapacitated to perform her duties and responsibilities of marriage.
• Gravity, Permanence, and Incurability: Petitioner maintained that respondent’s exaggerated reactions to normal situations and unreasonable feelings of rejection brought about by her dysfunctional upbringing were indications that her psychological condition was grave, permanent, and incurable.
• Court of Appeals Errors: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal and in denying the motion for reconsideration because the evidence supported the declaration of nullity of marriage.

• Psychological Incapacity of Petitioner: Respondent claimed that the marriage failed because it was Orlando, not she, who was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his obligations as a married man.
• Admission of Failed Marriage: Respondent admitted that efforts at reconciliation had been fruitless and that their marriage was a failure.
• Business Disagreement as Source of Conflict: Respondent claimed in her Memorandum submitted to the trial court that their quarrels arose solely from their disagreement on how to run their business.

• Psychological Incapacity Under Article 36: Whether the totality of the evidence presented is sufficient to sustain a finding that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations.
• Expert Findings on Gravity, Permanence, and Incurability: Whether the evidence supports the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that Dr. Cecilia Villegas failed to state whether respondent’s inadequate personality disorder was grave, permanent, and incurable.
• Dismissal of Appeal: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the appeal.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the motion for reconsideration.

• Psychological Incapacity Under Article 36: No. The totality of the evidence did not establish the grave, permanent, incurable, and anteceding psychological incapacity required by Article 36 of the Family Code and the guidelines in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina.
• Expert Findings on Gravity, Permanence, and Incurability: No. The evidence supports the lower courts’ finding that Dr. Villegas failed to state categorically whether respondent’s inadequate personality disorder was grave, permanent, and incurable.
• Dismissal of Appeal: No. The Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the appeal, the RTC’s dismissal being supported by the evidence.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: No. The Court of Appeals did not err in denying reconsideration, as no sufficient ground was shown to reverse the dismissal.

• Psychological Incapacity Under Article 36: Article 36 requires no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, and the incapacity must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court applied the guidelines in Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, including the requirements that the root cause be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, proven by experts, and explained in the decision; that the incapacity exist at the time of the celebration of marriage; that it be permanent or incurable; and that it be grave enough to disable the party from assuming the essential obligations of marriage. Although Dr. Villegas diagnosed Filipinas with Inadequate Personality Disorder with hysterical coloring, she failed to link that disorder to the conclusion that Filipinas was psychologically incapacitated to perform her obligations as wife and mother. The evidence established at most that Filipinas encountered difficulty and even refused to assume some obligations of respect, help, and support, but psychological incapacity must be more than difficulty, refusal, or neglect. There was no sufficient proof that the disorder was grave enough to render her incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties of marriage. There was also no categorical proof that the condition was permanent or incurable, as Dr. Villegas described it only as “more or less permanent.” The incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not merely to business or employment matters; the spouses’ disagreements centered on business management and money matters, which are common and normal occurrences between husbands and wives and are not sufficient grounds to nullify a marriage. No evidence showed Filipinas had been remiss in her obligations to their children under Article 220 of the Family Code. Article 36 is not a divorce law; it refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage, a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume. The aversive behavior of the spouses was a mere indication of incompatibility brought about by their different family backgrounds and attitudes, which developed after marriage. Any doubt must be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.
• Expert Findings on Gravity, Permanence, and Incurability: The Court found no cogent reason to depart from the assessment of the RTC and the CA. Dr. Villegas’s written evaluation and testimony did not fully and satisfactorily explain whether Filipinas’s personality disorder was grave enough to bring about her disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Even granting that the disorder was serious, there was no evidence that it rendered her incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage. Neither did Dr. Villegas categorically and conclusively characterize the disorder as permanent or incurable; her statement that Filipinas’s condition was “more or less permanent” fell short of the required proof of incurability.
• Dismissal of Appeal: Because the totality of the evidence did not establish psychological incapacity under Article 36, the Court of Appeals did not err in dismissing the appeal and in affirming the RTC’s dismissal of the petition for declaration of nullity.
• Denial of Motion for Reconsideration: No sufficient ground was shown to warrant reversal of the Court of Appeals’ decision. The denial of the motion for reconsideration was therefore proper.

• Psychological incapacity under Article 36 — A marriage is void when a party was psychologically incapacitated at the time of celebration to comply with essential marital obligations. The incapacity must be no less than a mental incapacity causing a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, and must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court applied this standard and found the evidence insufficient.
• Molina guidelines — In Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, the Court laid down the following guidelines for Article 36:
  • The burden of proof belongs to the plaintiff; any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.
  • The root cause must be 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.
  • The incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
  • The illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
  • The essential marital obligations are those in Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code and Articles 220, 221, and 225 for parents and children.
  • Interpretations of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines should be given great respect.
  • The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the State, with the Solicitor General’s certification quoted in the decision.
  • Modification by A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — Under Section 2(d) of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, a petition under Article 36 must specifically allege complete facts showing psychological incapacity at the time of celebration; the new Rule dispensed with the Solicitor General’s certification and the attachment of expert opinions to the petition.
  • State policy on marriage — The State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage, rooted in the sanctity of married life and the protection of the family as a basic autonomous social institution; any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
  • Article 36 is not a divorce law — Article 36 refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of marriage, a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.
  • Mere irreconcilable differences — A mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities does not constitute psychological incapacity; nor do difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of some marital obligations suffice.
  • Expert evidence must link diagnosis to incapacity — A psychiatric diagnosis of a personality disorder is not enough; the expert must link the disorder to the conclusion that the spouse is psychologically incapacitated to perform the obligations of marriage, and must satisfactorily explain gravity, permanence, and incurability.
  • Disagreements over money or business — Disagreements regarding money matters and business management are common and normal between spouses and are not sufficient grounds to declare a marriage null and void under Article 36.
  • Obligations to children — Marital obligation includes obligations toward children; no evidence was presented that respondent had been remiss in her obligations toward their children under Article 220 of the Family Code.

• "There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This psychologic condition must exist at the time the marriage is celebrated." — This passage defines psychological incapacity under Santos vs. Court of Appeals and states the temporal requirement that the condition must exist at the time of the marriage.
• "However, Dr. Villegas failed to link respondent's personality disorder to her conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform her obligations as wife and mother." — This is the Court’s key reason for rejecting the expert’s conclusion and for finding the evidence insufficient under Article 36.
• "However, a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity." — This passage distinguishes ordinary marital conflict and incompatibility from the grave psychological incapacity required by Article 36.
• "It remains settled that the State has a high stake in the preservation of marriage rooted in its recognition of the sanctity of married life and its mission to protect and strengthen the family as a basic autonomous social institution." — This passage states the policy basis for resolving doubts in favor of the existence and continuation of marriage.

• Santos vs. Court of Appeals, 310 Phil. 21 (1995) — Controlling precedent defining psychological incapacity as a mental incapacity causing a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 335 Phil. 664 (1997) — Laid down the eight guidelines for the interpretation and application of Article 36 of the Family Code, which the Court applied in this case.
• Republic of the Philippines vs. Iyoy, G.R. No. 152577, September 21, 2005, 470 SCRA 508 — Cited for the requisites of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability, and for the rule that Article 36 is not a divorce law.
• Choa vs. Choa, 441 Phil. 175 (2002) — Cited for the rule that psychological incapacity must be more than difficulty, refusal, or neglect, and that mere irreconcilable differences do not constitute psychological incapacity.
• Carating-Siayngco vs. Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, October 27, 2004, 441 SCRA 422 — Cited for the rule that Article 36 does not comprehend all possible cases of psychoses and for the State policy of protecting marriage and the family.

• 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 obligations of marriage shall be void even if the incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization. The Court applied this provision and found the evidence insufficient to establish the required incapacity.
• Article 68, Family Code — Enumerates the mutual obligations of spouses to live together, observe love, respect and fidelity, and render help and support. The Court used this provision to define the basic marital covenants that a psychologically incapacitated spouse must be unable to assume.
• Articles 68 to 71, Family Code — Define the essential marital obligations between husband and wife. The Molina guidelines require that the non-complied marital obligations be stated in the petition, proven by evidence, and included in the decision.
• Articles 220, 221, and 225, Family Code — Define parental obligations and rights with respect to children. The Court noted that no evidence was presented to show respondent had been remiss in her obligations toward their children under Article 220.
• Section 2(d), A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC — The Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages requires a petition under Article 36 to specifically allege complete facts showing psychological incapacity at the time of celebration. The new Rule dispensed with the Solicitor General’s certification and the attachment of expert opinions to the petition.

Consuelo Ynares-Santiago (Chairperson), Minita V. Chico-Nazario, Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura, and Ruben T. Reyes.