G.R. No. 213954.
April 20, 2022 (Case Digest)
Hannamer C. Pugoy-Solidum vs. Republic of the Philippines
Facts:
Hannamer C. Pugoy-Solidum (Hannamer) and Grant C.
Solidum (Grant) were high school sweethearts who started
living together after graduation. Hannamer worked and
supported Grant’s family financially. The couple got married
on March 12, 2003, upon Hannamer’s mother’s insistence
after Hannamer became pregnant. Post-wedding, Grant did
not contribute financially, indulged in gambling, and became
detached from his familial responsibilities, leading to
Hannamer living separately with her mother and child.
On January 3, 2010, Hannamer filed a petition for the
declaration of nullity of marriage citing Grant’s psychological
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. During trial
before the RTC of Tagaytay City, Hannamer testified and
presented Dr. Visitacion Revita, who diagnosed Grant with
narcissistic personality disorder based on Hannamer’s
account, as Grant did not undergo a personal examination.
The RTC granted the petition, declaring the marriage void ab
initio due to Grant’s psychological incapacity. The OSG
appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), asserting the
inadequacy of evidence for psychological incapacity and the
biased nature of Dr. Revita’s diagnosis. The CA reversed the
RTC’s ruling, validating the marriage. Hannamer’s
subsequent petition for review was brought before the
Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. Whether Grant C. Solidum’s alleged psychological
incapacity meets the requirements under Article 36 of the
Family Code.
2. Whether the totality of evidence presented is sufficient to
declare the marriage null and void on the grounds of
psychological incapacity, considering the absence of a
personal psychological evaluation of Grant.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied Hannamer’s petition, affirming
the CA’s decision that the marriage remains valid. The court
held that Hannamer failed to present convincing evidence
satisfying the criteria of gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability of psychological incapacity under Article 36.
**Gravity**: The alleged incapacity needs to be serious,
rendering one incapable of fulfilling ordinary marital duties.
The character traits described by Hannamer appeared as
mere personality flaws and not as severe mental conditions.
**Juridical Antecedence**: There was insufficient evidence
tracing these traits to the time before or at the onset of
marriage. The Court found that Dr. Revita’s report lacked
concrete linkage of Grant’s traits to behaviors before
marriage.
3. **Incurability**: There was no established enduring
psychological incapacity inherently present in Grant, given
Dr. Revita’s findings were primarily based on anecdotal
accounts.
The Court shifted from the stringent Molina guidelines,
emphasizing a nuanced interpretation of psychological
incapacity consistent with Tan-Andal v. Andal, which removed
the requirement of pathological labeling and allowed
ordinary witness testimony for assessing psychological
incapacity.
Doctrine:
– Psychological incapacity must be established as grave,
juridically antecedent, and incurable under Article 36 of the
Family Code. While expert testimony is valuable, it is not
mandatory if the totality of evidence suffices.
– Psychological incapacity is not synonymous with a mental
disorder and need not be proven through expert
psychological evidence.
– Legal, not merely medical, incurability is sufficient,
indicating a persistent dysfunction in fulfilling marital duties
with a specific partner.
Class Notes:
– **Article 36, Family Code**: Psychological incapacity to
meet marital duties as a ground for nullity.
**Essential Marital Obligations under the Family Code**:
Duties involve mutual love, respect, support, and
consortium.
– **Tan-Andal v. Andal Criteria**: Capacity issues must be
pre-marriage rooted, genuinely severe, and proven by clear
and convincing evidence.
– **Distinction from physical incapacity**: Article 36 focuses
on incapability due to profound personality issues.
Historical Background:
The case reflects the evolving interpretation of Article 36 of
the Family Code concerning psychological incapacity in the
Philippines. It demonstrates a transition from strictly
adhering to the Molina guidelines towards a more flexible
framework established by the Tan-Andal ruling, emphasizing
a judicial understanding over a purely scientific or medical
diagnosis of psychological issues affecting marital
obligations. This evolution grants courts broader discretion in
determining genuine incapacities devoid of stringent medical
labeling, providing a more humane approach consistent with
contemporary family law principles.
G.R. No. 255702, dated February 15, 2023
Elmer A. Temblor, Petitioner
vs.
Jennelyn S. Velez-Temblor and Republic of the
Philippines, Respondents
FACTS:
Elmer and Jennelyn started as textmates in 2003. After nine
months of being textmates, they became sweethearts.
Nonetheless, they saw each other only twice because he was
working as a seafarer.
Elmer and Jennelyn always argued even when they became
married and had a child. Elmer cannot control his emotion
and always accused his wife of having a relationship with
other guy and even accused the latter of wasting his hard
earned money.
Elmer sought the opinion of Rolando Geral A. De Dios Jr., a
clinical psychologist, who conducted personal interview with
Elmer. He claimed that Elmer suffered from a psychological
disorder clinically known as borderline personality disorder, a
serious mental illness that centers on the inability to manage
emotions effectively which made him annoyed easily due to
his low frustration tolerance.
On September 29, 2016, Elmer filed a Petition for Declaration
of Absolute Nullity of Marriage5 against his wife, respondent
Jennelyn S. Velez-Temblor (Jennelyn). Elmer raised as a
ground for his Petition his psychological incapacity. To further
amplify the Petition, Elmer presented Marilyn C. Colina
(Colina), their former neighbor who stated that the couple
was always arguing and even physically hurting each other.
On March 31, 2018, the RTC rendered a Decision18
dismissing the Petition on the ground that the totality of the
evidence presented failed to prove Elmer's psychological
incapacity which decision of the lower court was affirmed by
the Court Appeals citing the same ground.
ISSUES:
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AND
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE
MARRIAGE OF ELMER AND JENNELYN; AND
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE MARRIAGE OF ELMER AND
JENNELYN, UNDER ARTICLE 48 OF THE FAMILY CODE, BE
DECLARED VOID ON GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY
RULING:
“FOR THESE REASON~, the Petition for Review on Certiorari
is GRANTED. The Decision dated July 17, 2020 and the
Resolution dated February 16, 2021 of the Court of Appeals
in CA-G.R. CV No. 11 1321 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
The marriage between Elmer A. Tembor and Jennelyn S.
Velez Temblor is declared VOID on the ground of Elmer A.
Temblor's psychological incapacity.
SO ORDERED."
CONCLUSION:
The Decision of the Supreme Court was based on its
recent ruling in the case of Tan-Andal vs. Andal wherein it
was laid down thereon the requisites for a marriage
grounded on psychological capacity is void, to wit:
Gravity
Incurable
Juridical Antecedence
The Court held that for such be valid there must be
sufficient gravity showed by the person wherein he
demonstrated emotional outburst. An assessment of such
person’s attitude must be incurable and cannot be cured
by simple intervention. Lastly, the Court explained that for
a marriage be declared void it must be proven that such
ground or demonstration of uncontrolled attitude should
have occurred during the pre-marriage stage.
After careful consideration of the case, the Court held that
these requisites are present in case of Elmer wherein he
displayed emotional outburst and per opinion of the
psychologist it was found out that his disorder is incurable
and this display of uncontrollable personality was shown
even before their marriage which became a sufficient
ground for the Court to declare the marriage void,
although the Court put respect on the sanctity of marriage
as accorded by the Constitution but, according to the
Court, what is to be protected with it was invalid ab initio.
PRIMARY SOURCES
Constitution
Art. 48 of the Family Code
Art. 36 of the Family Code
Jurisprudences (Tan-andal vs. andal) (Molina case)
SECONDARY SOURCES
Legal Dictionaries
Internet sources
