SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 185286. August 18, 2010.]

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES , petitioner, vs . RAMON REYES-REYES , respondent.

DECISION

NACHURA , J : p

This case is, again, an instance of the all-too-familiar tale of a marriage in disarray.
In this regard, we air the caveat that courts should be extra careful before making a nding of psychological incapacity or vicariously
diagnosing personality disorders in spouses where there are none. On the other hand, blind adherence by the courts to the exhortation in the
Constitution 1 and in our statutes that marriage is an inviolable social institution, and validating a marriage that is null and void despite
convincing proof of psychological incapacity, trenches on the very reason why a marriage that is doomed from its inception should not be
forcibly inflicted upon its hapless partners for life.
At bar is a petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89761 2 which reversed the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854. 3
First, we unfurl the facts.
Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes met respondent Ramon Reyes at the University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman, in 1972 when
they were both nineteen (19) years old. They were simply classmates then in one university subject when respondent cross-enrolled from the
UP Los Baños campus. The casual acquaintanceship quickly developed into a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Petitioner was initially attracted
to respondent who she thought was free spirited and bright, although he did not follow conventions and traditions. 4 Since both resided in
Mandaluyong City, they saw each other every day and drove home together from the university. TCaSAH

Easily impressed, petitioner enjoyed respondent's style of courtship which included dining out, unlike other couples their age who were
restricted by a university student's budget. At that time, respondent held a job in the family business, the Aristocrat Restaurant. Petitioner's
good impression of the respondent was not diminished by the latter's habit of cutting classes, not even by her discovery that respondent was
taking marijuana.
Not surprisingly, only petitioner nished university studies, obtaining a degree in AB Sociology from the UP. By 1974, respondent had
dropped out of school on his third year, and just continued to work for the Aristocrat Restaurant.
On December 5, 1976, the year following petitioner's graduation and her father's death, petitioner and respondent got married. At that
time, petitioner was already five (5) months pregnant and employed at the Population Center Foundation.
Thereafter, the newlyweds lived with the respondent's family in Mandaluyong City. All living expenses were shouldered by respondent's
parents, and the couple's respective salaries were spent solely for their personal needs. Initially, respondent gave petitioner a monthly
allowance of P1,500.00 from his salary.
When their rst child was born on March 22, 1977, nancial dif culties started. Rearing a child entailed expenses. A year into their
marriage, the monthly allowance of P1,500.00 from respondent stopped. Further, respondent no longer handed his salary to petitioner. When
petitioner mustered enough courage to ask the respondent about this, the latter told her that he had resigned due to slow advancement within
the family business. Respondent's game plan was to venture into trading seafood in the province, supplying hotels and restaurants, including
the Aristocrat Restaurant. However, this new business took respondent away from his young family for days on end without any
communication. Petitioner simply endured the set up, hoping that the situation will change.
To prod respondent into assuming more responsibility, petitioner suggested that they live separately from her in-laws. However, the new
living arrangement engendered further nancial dif culty. While petitioner struggled to make ends meet as the single-income earner of the
household, respondent's business oundered. Thereafter, another attempt at business, a shpond in Mindoro, was similarly unsuccessful.
Respondent gave money to petitioner sporadically. Compounding the family's nancial woes and further straining the parties' relationship was
the indifferent attitude of respondent towards his family. That his business took him away from his family did not seem to bother respondent;
he did not exert any effort to remain in touch with them while he was away in Mindoro. ECDaTI

After two (2) years of struggling, the spouses transferred residence and, this time, moved in with petitioner's mother. But the new set up
did not end their marital dif culties. In fact, the parties became more estranged. Petitioner continued to carry the burden of supporting a family
not just financially, but in most aspects as well.
In 1985, petitioner, who had previously suffered a miscarriage, gave birth to their third son. At that time, respondent was in Mindoro and
he did not even inquire on the health of either the petitioner or the newborn. A week later, respondent arrived in Manila, acting nonchalantly while
playing with the baby, with nary an attempt to find out how the hospital bills were settled.
In 1989, due to nancial reverses, respondent's shpond business stopped operations. Although without any means to support his
family, respondent refused to go back to work for the family business. Respondent came up with another business venture, engaging in scrap
paper and carton trading. As with all of respondent's business ventures, this did not succeed and added to the trail of debt which now hounded
not only respondent, but petitioner as well. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated.
Sometime in 1996, petitioner con rmed that respondent was having an extra-marital affair. She overheard respondent talking to his
girlfriend, a former secretary, over the phone inquiring if the latter liked respondent's gift to her. Petitioner soon realized that respondent was
not only unable to provide nancially for their family, but he was, more importantly, remiss in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their
family.
One of the last episodes that sealed the fate of the parties' marriage was a surgical operation on petitioner for the removal of a cyst.
Although his wife was about to be operated on, respondent remained unconcerned and unattentive; and simply read the newspaper, and played
dumb when petitioner requested that he accompany her as she was wheeled into the operating room. After the operation, petitioner felt that
she had had enough of respondent's lack of concern, and asked her mother to order respondent to leave the recovery room.
Still, petitioner made a string of " nal" attempts to salvage what was left of their marriage. Petitioner approached respondent's siblings
and asked them to intervene, confessing that she was near the end of her rope. Yet, even respondent's siblings waved the white ag on
respondent.
Adolfo Reyes, respondent's elder brother, and his spouse, Peregrina, members of a marriage encounter group, invited and sponsored the
parties to join the group. The elder couple scheduled counseling sessions with petitioner and respondent, but these did not improve the parties'
relationship as respondent remained uncooperative.
In 1997, Adolfo brought respondent to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to "determine benchmarks of current
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 psychological functioning." As with all other attempts to help him, respondent resisted and did not continue with the clinical psychologist's
recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. DHITCc

At about this time, petitioner, with the knowledge of respondent's siblings, told respondent to move out of their house. Respondent
acquiesced to give space to petitioner.
With the de facto separation, the relationship still did not improve. Neither did respondent's relationship with his children.
Finally, in 2001, 5 petitioner led (before the RTC) a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with the respondent, alleging the
latter's psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Traversing the petition, respondent denied petitioner's allegations that he was psychologically incapacitated. Respondent maintained
that he was not remiss in performing his obligations to his family — both as a spouse to petitioner and father to their children.
After trial (where the testimonies of two clinical psychologists, Dr. Dayan and Dr. Estrella Magno, and a psychiatrist, Dr. Cecilia Villegas,
were presented in evidence), the RTC granted the petition and declared the marriage between the parties null and void on the ground of their
psychological incapacity. The trial court ruled, thus:
Wherefore, on the ground of psychological incapacity of both parties, the petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, the marriage between petitioner
MA. SOCORRO PERPETUA CAMACHO and respondent RAMON REYES contracted on December 4, 1976 at the Archbishop's Chapel Villa San
Miguel Mandaluyong, Rizal, is declared null and void under Art. 36 of the Family Code, as amended. Henceforth, their property relation is
dissolved.

Parties are restored to their single or unmarried status.

Their children JESUS TEODORO CAMACHO REYES and JOSEPH MICHAEL CAMACHO REYES, who are already of age and have the full civil
capacity and legal rights to decide for themselves having finished their studies, are free to decide for themselves.

The Decision becomes nal upon the expiration of fteen (15) days from notice to the parties. Entry of Judgment shall be made if no Motion
for Reconsideration or New Trial or Appeal is filed by any of the parties, the Public Prosecutor or the Solicitor General.

Upon finality of this Decision, the Court shall forthwith issue the corresponding Decree if the parties have no properties[.] [O]therwise, the Court
shall observe the procedure prescribed in Section 21 of AM 02-11-10 SC.
The Decree of Nullity quoting the dispositive portion of the Decision (Sec. 22 AM 02-11-10 SC) shall be issued by the Court only after
compliance with Articles 50 & 51 of the Family Code as implemented under the Rules on Liquidation, Partition and Distribution of Property
(Sections 19 & 21, AM 02-11-10 SC) in a situation where the parties have properties.

The Entry of Judgment of this Decision shall be registered in the Local Civil Registry of Mandaluyong and Quezon City.
Let [a] copy of this Decision be furnished the parties, their counsel, the Of ce of the Solicitor General, the Public Prosecutor, the Of ce of the
Local Civil Registrar, Mandaluyong City, the Of ce of the Local Civil Registrar, Quezon City and the Civil Registrar General at their respective
office addresses.

SO ORDERED. 6

Finding no cogent reason to reverse its prior ruling, the trial court, on motion for reconsideration of the respondent, af rmed the
declaration of nullity of the parties' marriage. CHIEDS

Taking exception to the trial court's rulings, respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals, adamant on the validity of his marriage to
petitioner. The appellate court, agreeing with the respondent, reversed the RTC and declared the parties' marriage as valid and subsisting.
Signi cantly, a special division of ve (two members dissenting from the majority decision and voting to af rm the decision of the RTC) ruled,
thus:
WHEREFORE , premises considered, the appeal is GRANTED . The Decision dated May 23, 2007 and Order dated July 13, 2007 of the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 89 in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE . The Amended Petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is hereby DISMISSED . No pronouncement as to costs. 7

Undaunted by the setback, petitioner now appeals to this Court positing the following issues:
I
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT RESPONDENT IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH THE
ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.
II

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT PETITIONER IS LIKEWISE PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED TO COMPLY WITH
THE ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.

III
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT DISREGARDED THE TESTIMONIES OF THE EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENTED BY PETITIONER.

IV
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT ARE BINDING ON IT.
V

THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DULY ESTABLISHED THE
PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES OF THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE.

VI
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITIES OF THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE
ESSENTIAL OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE WERE ESTABLISHED, NOT MERELY BY A TOTALITY, BUT BY A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE.
CTDacA

VII
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE PARTIES' MARRIAGE, WHICH IS UNDOUBTEDLY VOID AB INITIO UNDER
ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE, DOES NOT FURTHER THE INITIATIVES OF THE STATE CONCERNING MARRIAGE AND FAMILY AND
THEREFORE, NOT COVERED BY THE MANTLE OF THE CONSTITUTION ON THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE.

VIII
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT RULING THAT THE AMENDED PETITION WAS VALIDLY AMENDED TO CONFORM TO EVIDENCE. 8
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 Essentially, petitioner raises the singular issue of whether the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties'
psychological incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.
In declaring the marriage null and void, the RTC relied heavily on the oral and documentary evidence obtained from the three (3) experts
i.e., Doctors Magno, Dayan and Villegas. The RTC ratiocinated, thus:
After a careful evaluation of the entire evidence presented, the Court finds merit in the petition.

Article 36 of the Family Code reads:

"A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after solemnization."
and Art. 68 of the same Code provides:

"The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support."
Similarly, Articles 69-71 further de ne the mutual obligations of a marital partner towards each other and Articles 220, 225 and 271 of the
Family Code express the duties of parents toward their children.
Article 36 does not define what psychological incapacity means. It left the determination of the same solely to the Court on a case to case
basis. IHDCcT

xxx xxx xxx

Taking into consideration the explicit guidelines in the determination of psychological incapacity in conjunction to the totality of the evidence
presented, with emphasis on the pervasive pattern of behaviors of the respondent and outcome of the assessment/diagnos[is] of expert
witnesses, Dra. Dayan, Dra. Mango and Dra. Villegas on the psychological condition of the respondent, the Court nds that the marriage
between the parties from its inception has a congenital in rmity termed "psychological incapacity" which pertains to the inability of the
parties to effectively function emotionally, intellectually and socially towards each other in relation to their essential duties to mutually
observe love, delity and respect as well as to mutually render help and support, (Art. 68 Family Code). In short, there was already a xed
niche in the psychological constellation of respondent which created the death of his marriage. There is no reason to entertain any slightest
doubt on the truthfulness of the personality disorder of the respondent.
The three expert witnesses have spoken. They were unanimous in their ndings that respondent is suffering from personality disorder which
psychologically incapacitated him to ful ll his basic duties to the marriage. Being professionals and hav[ing] solemn duties to their
profession, the Court considered their assessment/diagnos[is] as credible or a product of an honest evaluation on the psychological status of
the respondent. This psychological incapacity of the respondent, in the uniform words of said three (3) expert witnesses, is serious, incurable
and exists before his marriage and renders him a helpless victim of his structural constellation. It is beyond the respondent's impulse control.
In short, he is weaponless or powerless to restrain himself from his consistent behaviors simply because he did not consider the same as
wrongful. This is clearly manifested from his assertion that nothing was wrong in his marriage with the petitioner and considered their
relationship as a normal one. In fact, with this belief, he lent deaf ears to counseling and efforts extended to them by his original family
members to save his marriage. In short, he was blind and too insensitive to the reality of his marital atmosphere. He totally disregarded the
feelings of petitioner who appeared to have been saturated already that she nally revealed her misfortunes to her sister-in-law and willingly
submitted to counseling to save their marriage. However, the hard position of the respondent nally constrained her to ask respondent to
leave the conjugal dwelling. Even the siblings of the respondent were unanimous that separation is the remedy to the seriously ailing
marriage of the parties. Respondent confirmed this stand of his siblings.

xxx xxx xxx

The process of an ideal atmosphere demands a give and take relationship and not a one sided one. It also requires surrender to the fulfillment
of the essential duties to the marriage which must naturally be observed by the parties as a consequence of their marriage. Unfortunately, the
more than 21 years of marriage between the parties did not create a monument of marital integrity, simply because the personality disorder of
the respondent which renders him psychologically incapacitated to ful ll his basic duties to his marriage, is deeply entombed in his structural
system and cure is not possible due to his belief that there is nothing wrong with them.
The checkered life of the parties is not solely attributable to the respondent. Petitioner, too, is to be blamed. Dra. Villegas was rm that she,
too, is af icted with psychological incapacity as her personality cannot be harmonized with the personality of the respondent. They are poles
apart. Petitioner is a well-organized person or a perfectionist while respondent is a free spirited or carefree person. Thus, the weakness of the
respondent cannot be catered by the petitioner and vice-versa.

Resultantly, the psychological incapacities of both parties constitute the thunder bolt or principal culprit on their inability to nurture and
reward their marital life with meaning and signi cance. So much so that it is a pity that though their marriage is intact for 21 years, still it is
an empty kingdom due to their psychological incapacity which is grave, incurable and has origin from unhealthy event in their growing years.
cEHSTC

Both parties to the marriage are protected by the law. As human beings, they are entitled to live in a peaceful and orderly environment
conducive to a healthy life. In fact, Article 72 of the Family Code provides remedy to any party aggrieved by their marital reality. The case of
the parties is already a settled matter due to their psychological incapacity. In the words of Dra. Magno, their marriage, at the very inception,
was already at the funeral parlor. Stated differently, there was no life at all in their marriage for it never existed at all. The Court nds that with
this reality, both parties suffer in agony by continuously sustaining a marriage that exists in paper only. Hence, it could no longer chain or jail
the parties whose marriage remains in its crib with its boots and diaper due to factors beyond the physical, emotional, intellectual and social
ability of the parties to sustain. 9

In a complete turnaround, albeit disposing of the case through a divided decision, the appellate court diverged from the ndings of the
RTC in this wise:
On the basis of the guidelines [in Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina ] vis-à-vis the totality of evidence presented by herein [petitioner], we
nd that the latter failed to suf ciently establish the alleged psychological incapacity of her husband, as well as of herself. There is thus no
basis for declaring the nullity of their marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

[Petitioner] presented several expert witnesses to show that [respondent] is psychologically incapacitated. Clinical psychologist Dayan
diagnosed [respondent] as purportedly suffering from Mixed Personality Disorder (Schizoid Narcissistic and Anti-Social Personality Disorder).
Further, clinical psychologist Magno found [respondent] to be suffering from an Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and
dependent features, while Dr. Villegas diagnosed [respondent] to be suffering from Personality Disorder of the anti-social type, associated
with strong sense of Inadequacy especially along masculine strivings and narcissistic features.

Generally, expert opinions are regarded, not as conclusive, but as purely advisory in character. A court may place whatever weight it chooses
upon such testimonies. It may even reject them, if it nds that they are inconsistent with the facts of the case or are otherwise unreasonable.
In the instant case, neither clinical psychologist Magno nor psychiatrist Dr. Villegas conducted a psychological examination on the
[respondent].

Undoubtedly, the assessment and conclusion made by Magno and Dr. Villegas are hearsay. They are "unscienti c and unreliable" as they
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 have no personal knowledge of the psychological condition of the [respondent] as they never personally examined the [respondent] himself.

xxx xxx xxx

[I]t can be gleaned from the recommendation of Dayan that the purported psychological incapacity of [respondent] is not incurable as the
[petitioner] would like this Court to think. It bears stressing that [respondent] was referred to Dayan for "psychological evaluation to determine
benchmarks of current psychological functioning." The undeniable fact is that based on Dayan's personal examination of the [respondent],
the assessment procedures used, behavioral observations made, background information gathered and interpretation of psychological data,
the conclusion arrived at is that there is a way to help the [respondent] through individual therapy and counseling sessions. TAScID

Even granting arguendo that the charges cast by the [petitioner] on [respondent], such as his failure to give regular support, substance abuse,
in delity and "come and go" attitude are true, the totality of the evidence presented still falls short of establishing that [respondent] is
psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations within the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.
xxx xxx xxx

In the case at bar, we hold that the court a quo's ndings regarding the [respondent's] alleged mixed personality disorder, his "come and go"
attitude, failed business ventures, inadequate/delayed nancial support to his family, sexual in delity, insensitivity to [petitioner's] feelings,
irresponsibility, failure to consult [petitioner] on his business pursuits, unful lled promises, failure to pay debts in connection with his failed
business activities, taking of drugs, etc. are not rooted on some debilitating psychological condition but on serious marital
dif culties/differences and mere refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage. [Respondent's] "defects" were not
present at the inception of marriage. They were even able to live in harmony in the rst few years of their marriage, which bore them two
children . . . . In fact, [petitioner] admitted in her Amended Petition that initially they lived comfortably and [respondent] would give his salary in
keeping with the tradition in most Filipino households, but the situation changed when [respondent] resigned from the family-owned
Aristocrat Restaurant and thereafter, [respondent] failed in his business ventures. It appears, however, that [respondent] has been gainfully
employed with Marigold Corporation, Inc. since 1998, which fact was stipulated upon by the [petitioner].

xxx xxx xxx

As regards the purported psychological incapacity of [petitioner], Dr. Villegas' Psychiatric Report states that [petitioner] "manifested
inadequacies along her affective sphere, that made her less responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, who needed a great amount
of it, rendering her relatively psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage.

However, a perusal of the Amended Petition shows that it failed to speci cally allege the complete facts showing that petitioner was
psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of celebration [thereof] even if
such incapacity became manifest only after its celebration . . . . In fact, what was merely prayed for in the said Amended Petition is that
judgment be rendered "declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 04 December 1976 to be void ab
initio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent at the time of the celebration of marriage . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
What is evident is that [petitioner] really encountered a lot of dif culties in their marriage. However, it is jurisprudentially settled that
psychological incapacity must be more than just a "dif culty," a "refusal" or a "neglect" in the performance of some marital obligations, it is
essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological illness existing at the time of the celebration of the
marriage. TaISDA

While [petitioner's] marriage with [respondent] failed and appears to be without hope of reconciliation, the remedy, however, is not always to
have it declared void ab initio on the ground of psychological incapacity. An unsatisfactory marriage, however, is not a null and void
marriage. No less than the Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family; it decrees marriage as legally
"inviolable" and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected" by the State.
Thus, in determining the import of "psychological incapacity" under Article 36, it must be read in conjunction with, although to be taken as
distinct from Articles 35, 37, 38 and 41 that would likewise, but for different reasons, render the marriage void ab initio, or Article 45 that
would make the marriage merely voidable, or Article 55 that could justify a petition for legal separation. Care must be observed so that these
various circumstances are not applied so indiscriminately as if the law were indifferent on the matter. Article 36 should not be confused with
a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves. . . .

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. Hence, any doubt should be resolved in favor of the
existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. 1 0

After a thorough review of the records of the case, we cannot subscribe to the appellate court's ruling that the psychological incapacity
of respondent was not suf ciently established. We disagree with its decision declaring the marriage between the parties as valid and
subsisting. Accordingly, we grant the petition.
Santos v. Court of Appeals 1 1 solidi ed the jurisprudential foundation of the principle that the factors characterizing psychological
incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations are: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, and (3) incurability. We explained:
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it
must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and
it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 1 2

As previously adverted to, the three experts were one in diagnosing respondent with a personality disorder, to wit: STDEcA

1. Dra. Cecilia C. Villegas

PSYCHODYNAMICS OF THE CASE

[Petitioner] is the second among 6 siblings of educated parents. Belonging to an average social status, intellectual achievement is quite
important to the family values (sic) . All children were equipped with high intellectual potentials (sic) which made their parents proud of them.
Father was disabled, but despite his handicap, he was able to assume his nancial and emotional responsibilities to his family and to a
limited extent, his social functions (sic) . Despite this, he has been described as the unseen strength in the family.
Mother [of petitioner] was [actively involved] in activities outside the home. Doing volunteer and community services, she was not the
demonstrative, affectionate and the emotional mother (sic) . Her love and concern came in the form of positive attitudes, advices (sic) and
encouragements (sic) , but not the caressing, sensitive and soothing touches of an emotional reaction (sic) . Psychological home environment
did not permit one to nurture a hurt feeling or depression, but one has to stand up and to help himself (sic) . This trained her to subjugate (sic)
emotions to reasons.

Because of her high intellectual endowment, she has easy facilities for any undertakings (sic) . She is organized, planned (sic) , reliable,
dependable, systematic, prudent, loyal, competent and has a strong sense of duty (sic). But emotionally, she is not as sensitive. Her analytical
resources and strong sense of objectivity predisposed her to a super cial adjustments (sic) . She acts on the dictates of her mind and reason,
and less of how she feels (sic) . The above qualities are perfect for a leader, but less effective in a heterosexual relationship, especially to her
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 husband, who has deep seated sense of inadequacy, insecurity, low self esteem and self-worth despite his intellectual assets (sic) . Despite
this, [petitioner] remained in her marriage for more than 20 years, trying to reach out and lending a hand for better understanding and
relationship (sic) . She was hoping for the time when others, like her husband would make decision for her (sic) , instead of being depended
upon. But the more [petitioner] tried to compensate for [respondent's] shortcomings, the bigger was the discrepancy in their coping
mechanisms (sic) . At the end, [petitioner] felt unloved, unappreciated, uncared for and she characterized their marriage as very much lacking
in relationship (sic) .

On the other hand, [respondent] is the 9th of 11 siblings and belonged to the second set of brood (sic) , where there were less bounds (sic) and
limitations during his growing up stage. Additionally, he was acknowledged as the favorite of his mother, and was described to have a close
relationship with her. At an early age, he manifested clinical behavior of conduct disorder and was on marijuana regularly. Despite his
apparent high intellectual potentials (sic) , he felt that he needed a "push" to keep him going. His being a "free spirit", attracted [petitioner], who
adored him for being able to do what he wanted, without being bothered by untraditional, unacceptable norms and differing ideas from other
people. He presented no guilt feelings, no remorse, no anxiety for whatever wrongdoings he has committed. His studies proved too much of a
pressure for him, and quit at the middle of his course, despite his apparent high intellectual resources (sic) . cCSHET

His marriage to [petitioner] became a bigger pressure. Trying to prove his worth, he quit work from his family employment and ventured on his
own. With no much planning and project study, his businesses failed. This became the sources (sic) of their marital con icts, the lack of
relationships (sic) and consultations (sic) with each other, his negativistic attitudes (sic) and sarcasm, stubbornness and insults, his spitting
at her face which impliedly meant "you are nothing as compared to me" were in reality, his defenses for a strong sense of inadequacy (sic) .

As described by [petitioner], he is intelligent and has bright ides. However, this seemed not coupled with emotional attributes such as
perseverance, patience, maturity, direction, focus, adequacy, stability and con dence to make it work. He complained that he did not feel the
support of his wife regarding his decision to go into his own business. But when he failed, the more he became negativistic and closed to
suggestions especially from [petitioner]. He was too careful not to let go or make known his strong sense of inadequacy, ambivalence, doubts,
lack of drive and motivation or even feelings of inferiority, for fear of rejection or loss of pride. When things did not work out according to his
plans, he suppressed his hostilities in negative ways, such as stubbornness, sarcasm or drug intake.

His decision making is characterized by poor impulse control, lack of insight and primitive drives. He seemed to feel more comfortable in
being untraditional and different from others. Preoccupation is centered on himself, (sic) an unconscious wish for the continuance of the
grati cation of his dependency needs, (sic) in his mother-son relationship. From this stems his dif culties in heterosexual relationship with
his wife, as pressures, stresses, (sic) demands and expectations lled up in ( sic) up in their marital relationship. Strong masculine strivings is
projected.
For an intelligent person like [respondent], he may sincerely want to be able to assume his duties and responsibilities as a
husband and father, but because of a severe psychological deficit, he was unable to do so.

Based on the clinical data presented, it is the opinion of the examiner, that [petitioner] manifested inadequacies along her affective sphere,
that made her less responsive to the emotional needs of her husband, who needed a great amount of it, rendering her relatively
psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. [Respondent], on the other hand, has manifested
strong clinical evidences ( sic ), that he is suffering from a Personality Disorder, of the antisocial type, associated with strong
sense of Inadequacy along masculine strivings and narcissistic features that renders him psychologically incapacitated to
perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. This is characterized by his inability to conform to the social norms that
ordinarily govern many aspects of adolescent and adult behavior. His being a "free spirit" associated with no remorse, no
guilt feelings and no anxiety, is distinctive of this clinical condition. His prolonged drug intake [marijuana] and maybe
stronger drugs lately, are external factors to boost his ego.

The root cause of the above clinical conditions is due to his underlying defense mechanisms, or the unconscious mental
processes, that the ego uses to resolve con icts. His prolonged and closed attachments to his mother encouraged cross identi cation
and developed a severe sense of inadequacy speci cally along masculine strivings. He therefore has to camou age his weakness, in terms
of authority, assertiveness, unilateral and forceful decision making, aloofness and indifference, even if it resulted to antisocial acts. His
narcissistic supplies rendered by his mother was not resolved (sic) . HDTSCc

It existed before marriage, but became manifest only after the celebration, due to marital demands and stresses. It is
considered as permanent in nature because it started early in his psychological development, and therefore became so engrained into his
personality structures (sic) . It is considered as severe in degree, because it hampered, interrupted and interfered with his normal functioning
related to heterosexual adjustments. (emphasis supplied) 1 3

2. Dr. Natividad A. Dayan

Adolfo and Mandy[, respondent]'s brothers, referred [respondent] to the clinic. According to them, respondent has not really taken care of his
wife and children. He does not seem to have any direction in life. He seems to be full of bright ideas and good at starting things but he never
gets to accomplish anything. His brothers are suspecting (sic) that until now [respondent] is still taking drugs. There are times when they see
that [respondent] is not himself. He likes to bum around and just spends the day at home doing nothing. They wish that he'd be more
responsible and try to give priority to his family. [Petitioner,] his wife[,] is the breadwinner of the family because she has a stable job.
[Respondent]'s brothers learned from friends that [petitioner] is really disappointed with him. She has discussed things with him but he always
refused to listen. She does not know what to do with him anymore. She has grown tired of him.

When [respondent] was asked about his drug problem, he mentioned that he stopped taking it in 1993. His brothers think that he is not telling
the truth. It is so hard for [respondent] to stop taking drugs when he had been hooked to it for the past 22 years. When [respondent] was also
asked what his problems are at the moment, he mentioned that he feels lonely and distressed. He does not have anyone to talk to. He feels
that he and his wife [have] drifted apart. He wants to be close to somebody and discuss things with this person but he is not given the
chance. He also mentioned that one of his weak points is that he is very tolerant of people[,] that is why he is taken advantage of most of the
time. He wants to avoid con ict so he'd rather be submissive and compliant. He does not want to hurt anyone [or] to cause anymore pain. He
wants to make other people happy.

xxx xxx xxx

Interpretation of Psychological Data

A. Intellectual/Cognitive Functioning
xxx xxx xxx

B. Vocational Preference

xxx xxx xxx

C. Socio Emotional Functioning

xxx xxx xxx

In his relationships with people, [respondent] is apt to project a reserved, aloof and detached attitude. [Respondent] exhibits withdrawal
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 patterns. He has deep feelings of inadequacy. Due to a low self-esteem, he tends to feel inferior and to exclude himself from association with
others. He feels that he is "different" and as a result is prone to anticipate rejections. Because of the discomfort produced by these feelings, he
is apt to avoid personal and social involvement, which increases his preoccupation with himself and accentuates his tendency to withdraw
from interpersonal contact. [Respondent] is also apt to be the less dominant partner. He feels better when he has to follow than when he has
to take the lead. A self-contained person[,] he does not really need to interact with others in order to enjoy life and to be able to move on. He
has a small need of companionship and is most comfortable alone. He, too[,] feels uncomfortable in expressing his more tender feelings for
fear of being hurt. Likewise, he maybe very angry within but he may choose to repress this feeling. [Respondent's] strong need for social
approval, which could have stemmed from some deep seated insecurities makes him submissive and over [compliant]. He tends to make
extra effort to please people. Although at times[, he] already feels victimized and taken advantage of, he still tolerates abusive behavior for
fear of interpersonal con icts. Despite his [dis]illusion with people, he seeks to minimize dangers of indifference and disapproval [of] others.
Resentments are suppressed. This is likely to result in anger and frustrations which is likewise apt to be repressed. EaHcDS

There are indications that [respondent] is[,] at the moment[,] experiencing considerable tension and anxiety. He is prone to fits of apprehension
and nervousness. Likewise, he is also entertaining feelings of hopelessness and is preoccupied with negative thought. He feels that he is up
in the air but with no sound foundation. He is striving [for] goals which he knows he will never be able to attain. Feeling discouraged and
distressed, he has dif culty concentrating and focusing on things which he needs to prioritize. He has many plans but he can't accomplish
anything because he is unable to see which path to take. This feeling of hopelessness is further aggravated by the lack of support from
significant others.

Diagnostic Impression
Axis I : Drug Dependence
Axis II : Mixed Personality Disorder
[Schizoid, Narcissistic and Antisocial Personality Disorder]
Axis III : None
Axis IV : Psychosocial and Environmental Problems: Severe
He seems to be very good at planning and starting things but is unable to accomplish anything; unable to give priority to the needs of his family; in s
Axis V : Global Assessment of Functioning — Fair (Emphasis supplied) 1 4

3. Dr. Estrella T. Tiongson-Magno

Summary and Conclusion
From the evidence available from [petitioner's] case history and from her psychological assessment, and despite the non-
cooperation of the respondent, it is possible to infer with certainty the nullity of this marriage. Based on the information
available about the respondent, he suffers from [an] antisocial personality disorder with narcissistic and dependent features
that renders him too immature and irresponsible to assume the normal obligations of a marriage. As for the petitioner, she is a
good, sincere, and conscientious person and she has tried her best to provide for the needs of her children. Her achievements in this regard
are praiseworthy. But she is emotionally immature and her comprehension of human situations is very shallow for a woman of her academic
and professional competence. And this explains why she married RRR even when she knew he was a pothead, then despite the abuse, took so
long to do something about her situation. AScHCD

Diagnosis for [petitioner]:

Axis I Partner Relational Problem

Axis II Obsessive Compulsive Personality Style with Self-Defeating features
Axis III No diagnosis
Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord (spouse's immaturity, drug abuse, and infidelity)
Severity: 4-severe
Diagnosis for [respondent]
Axis I Partner Relational Problem
Axis II Antisocial Personality Disorder with marked narcissistic, aggressive sadistic and dependent features
Axis III No diagnosis
Axis IV Psychosocial Stressors-Pervasive Family Discord (successful wife)
Severity: 4 (severe)

xxx xxx xxx

One has to go back to [respondent's] early childhood in order to understand the root cause of his antisocial personality disorder.
[Respondent] grew up the ninth child in a brood of 11. His elder siblings were taken cared of by his grandmother. [Respondent's] father was
kind, quiet and blind and [respondent] was [reared] by his mother. Unfortunately, [respondent's] mother grew up believing that she was not her
mother's favorite child, so she felt "api, treated like poor relations." [Respondent's] mother's reaction to her perceived rejection was to act out —
with poor impulse control and poor mood regulation (spent money like water, had terrible temper tantrums, etc.). Unwittingly, his mother
became [respondent's] role model.
However, because [respondent] had to get on with the business of living, he learned to use his good looks and his charms, and learned to size
up the weaknesses of others, to lie convincingly and to say what people wanted to hear (esp. his deprived mother who liked admiration and
attention, his siblings from whom he borrowed money, etc.). In the process, his ability to love and to empathize with others was impaired so
that he cannot sustain a relationship with one person for a long time, which is devastating in a marriage.
[Respondent's] narcissistic personality features were manifested by his self-centeredness (e.g., moved to Mindoro and lived there for 10
years, leaving his family in Manila); his grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., he would just "come and go," without telling his wife his
whereabouts, etc.); his sense of entitlement (e.g., felt entitled to a mistress because [petitioner] deprived him of his marital rights, etc.);
interpersonally exploitative (e.g., let his wife spend for all the maintenance needs of the family, etc.); and lack of empathy ( e.g., when asked to
choose between his mistress and his wife, he said he would think about it, etc.) The aggressive sadistic personality features were
manifested whom he has physically, emotionally and verbally abusive [of] his wife when high on drugs; and his dependent personality
features were manifested by his need for others to assume responsibility for most major areas of his life, and in his dif culty in doing things
on his own.
[Respondent], diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder with marked narcissistic features and aggressive sadistic
and dependent features, is psychologically incapacitated to ful ll the essential obligations of marriage: to love, respect and
render support for his spouse and children. A personality disorder is not curable as it is permanent and stable over time. EcTDCI

From a psychological viewpoint, therefore, there is evidence that the marriage of [petitioner] and [respondent is] null and
void from the very beginning. (emphasis supplied) 1 5

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]

 Notwithstanding these telling assessments, the CA rejected, wholesale, the testimonies of Doctors Magno and Villegas for being hearsay
since they never personally examined and interviewed the respondent.
We do not agree with the CA.
The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per
se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their ndings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as
evidence.
For one, marriage, by its very de nition, 1 6 necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the
cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testi ed on their individual
assessment of the present state of the parties' marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. Certainly, petitioner, during
their marriage, had occasion to interact with, and experience, respondent's pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to the clinical
psychologists and the psychiatrist.
For another, the clinical psychologists' and psychiatrist's assessment were not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the
petitioner. Other informants such as respondent's own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testi ed on their own
observations of respondent's behavior and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him. 1 7 These were also used as the
basis of the doctors' assessments.
The recent case of Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim , 1 8 citing The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV), 1 9
instructs us on the general diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:
A. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This
pattern is manifested in two (2) or more of the following areas:

(1) cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)
(2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, liability, and appropriateness of emotional response)

(3) interpersonal functioning

(4) impulse control
B. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations. DEcTIS

C. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of
functioning.
D. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.

E. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or a consequence of another mental disorder.
F. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (i.e., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general
medical condition (e.g., head trauma).

Specifically, the DSM IV outlines the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder:
A. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or
more) of the following:

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds
for arrest
(2) deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

(3) impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

(4) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults
(5) reckless disregard for safety of self or others

(6) consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations
(7) lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another
B. The individual is at least 18 years.

C. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.

D. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode. 2 0 HESIcT

Within their acknowledged eld of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors
culled from various sources. A person af icted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case,
considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial
of the doctors' separate diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.
The CA declared that, based on Dr. Dayan's findings and recommendation, the psychological incapacity of respondent is not incurable.
The appellate court is mistaken.
A recommendation for therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general, recommendations for therapy are given by clinical
psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage behavior. In Kaplan and Saddock's textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, 2 1 treatment,
ranging from psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended. In short, Dr. Dayan's
recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy does not necessarily negate the nding that respondent's psychological incapacity
is incurable.
Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations. 2 2 As aptly stated by Justice Romero in her separate opinion in the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of
Appeals & Molina: 2 3
[T]he professional opinion of a psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the person's entire life, both
before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional opinions about a party's mental
capacity at the time of the wedding. These opinions were rarely challenged and tended to be accepted as decisive evidence of lack of valid
consent.
. . . [Because] of advances made in psychology during the past decades. There was now the expertise to provide the all-important connecting
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 link between a marriage breakdown and premarital causes.
In sum, we nd points of convergence & consistency in all three reports and the respective testimonies of Doctors Magno, Dayan and
Villegas, i.e.: (1) respondent does have problems; and (2) these problems include chronic irresponsibility; inability to recognize and work
towards providing the needs of his family; several failed business attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of unpaid money obligations. EaCDAT

It is true that a clinical psychologist's or psychiatrist's diagnoses that a person has personality disorder is not automatically believed by
the courts in cases of declaration of nullity of marriages. Indeed, a clinical psychologist's or psychiatrist's nding of a personality disorder does
not exclude a finding that a marriage is valid and subsisting, and not beset by one of the parties' or both parties' psychological incapacity.
On more than one occasion, we have rejected an expert's opinion concerning the supposed psychological incapacity of a party. 2 4 In Lim
v. Sta. Cruz-Lim, 2 5 we ruled that, even without delving into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina , 2 6 the stringent
requisites provided in Santos v. Court of Appeals 2 7 must be independently met by the party alleging the nullity of the marriage grounded on
Article 36 of the Family Code. We declared, thus:
It was folly for the trial court to accept the ndings and conclusions of Dr. Villegas with nary a link drawn between the "psychodynamics of
the case" and the factors characterizing the psychological incapacity. Dr. Villegas' sparse testimony does not lead to the inevitable conclusion
that the parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Even on questioning from the trial court,
Dr. Villegas' testimony did not illuminate on the parties' alleged personality disorders and their incapacitating effect on their marriage . . . .
Curiously, Dr. Villegas' global conclusion of both parties' personality disorders was not supported by psychological tests properly
administered by clinical psychologists speci cally trained in the tests' use and interpretation. The supposed personality disorders of the
parties, considering that such diagnoses were made, could have been fully established by psychometric and neurological tests which are
designed to measure specific aspects of people's intelligence, thinking, or personality.
xxx xxx xxx
The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and unsupported by separate psychological
tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual nding on what happened in this case. The probative
force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to
the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.

In the case at bar, however, even without the experts' conclusions, the factual antecedents (narrative of events) alleged in the petition and
established during trial, all point to the inevitable conclusion that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital
obligations.
Article 68 of the Family Code provides: AcSIDE

Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

In this connection, it is well to note that persons with antisocial personality disorder exhibit the following clinical features:
Patients with antisocial personality disorder can often seem to be normal and even charming and ingratiating. Their histories, however, reveal
many areas of disordered life functioning. Lying, truancy, running away from home, thefts, ghts, substance abuse, and illegal activities are
typical experiences that patients report as beginning in childhood. . . . Their own explanations of their antisocial behavior make it seem
mindless, but their mental content reveals the complete absence of delusions and other signs of irrational thinking. In fact, they frequently
have a heightened sense of reality testing and often impress observers as having good verbal intelligence.
. . . Those with this disorder do not tell the truth and cannot be trusted to carry out any task or adhere to any conventional standard of
morality. . . . A notable finding is a lack of remorse for these actions; that is, they appear to lack a conscience. 2 8

In the instant case, respondent's pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential
marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic nancial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts;
(5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.
On the issue of the petitioner's purported psychological incapacity, we agree with the CA's ruling thereon:
A perusal of the Amended Petition shows that it failed to speci cally allege the complete facts showing that petitioner was psychologically
incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such
incapacity became manifest only after its celebration . . . . In fact, what was merely prayed for in the said Amended Petition is that judgment
be rendered "declaring the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 04 December 1976 to be void ab initio on the
ground of psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent at the time of the celebration of the marriage . . .
At any rate, even assuming arguendo that [petitioner's] Amended Petition was indeed amended to conform to the evidence, as provided under
Section 5, Rule 10 of the Rules of Court, Dr. Villegas' nding that [petitioner] is supposedly suffering from an Inadequate Personality [Disorder]
along the affectional area does not amount to psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Such alleged condition of
[petitioner] is not a debilitating psychological condition that incapacitates her from complying with the essential marital obligations of
marriage. In fact, in the Psychological Evaluation Report of clinical psychologist Magno, [petitioner] was given a glowing evaluation as she
was found to be a "good, sincere, and conscientious person and she has tried her best to provide for the needs of her children. Her
achievements in this regard are praiseworthy." Even in Dr. Villegas' psychiatric report, it was stated that [petitioner] was able to remain in their
marriage for more than 20 years "trying to reach out and lending a hand for better understanding and relationship." With the foregoing
evaluation made by no less than [petitioner's] own expert witnesses, we nd it hard to believe that she is psychologically incapacitated within
the contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code. 2 9 cCAIDS

All told, it is wise to be reminded of the caveat articulated by Justice Teodoro R. Padilla in his separate statement in Republic v. Court of
Appeals and Molina: 3 0
". . . Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own facts. In the
eld of psychological incapacity as a ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with another case. The
trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own
judgment for that of the trial court."

In ne, given the factual milieu of the present case and in light of the foregoing disquisition, we nd ample basis to conclude that
respondent was psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations at the time of his marriage to the petitioner.
WHEREFORE , the petition is GRANTED . The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 89761 is REVERSED . The decision of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL
and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is REINSTATED . No costs.
SO ORDERED .
Carpio, Peralta, Abad and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]
 Footnotes

1. Article XV, Section 2 of the Constitution.

2. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Mario L. Guarina III and Pampio A. Abarintos concurring, and
Associate Justices Vicente Q. Roxas and Teresita Dy-Liacco Flores dissenting, rollo, pp. 9-45.
3. Penned by Judge Elsa I. De Guzman, id. at 237-261.

4. Psychiatric Report of Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, id. at 404.

5. The original petition was filed in July of 2001; RTC records, pp. 1-18; the amended petition, in December of the same year, id. at 87-88.

6. Rollo, pp. 260-261.

7. Id. at 231.
8. Id. at 102-103.
9. Id. at 257-260.
10. Id. at 38-44.
11. G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20.

12. Rollo, pp. 33-34.

13. Id. at 413-416.
14. Id. at 390-397.
15. Id. at 372-375.
16. Article 1 of the Family Code.

Art. 1. Marriage is a special contract of permanent union between a man and a woman entered into in accordance with law for the establishment of
conjugal and family life. . . .
17. Rollo, pp. 243, 248-249.
18. G.R. No. 176464, February 4, 2010.

19. Quick Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
20. See Kaplan and Saddock's Synopsis of Psychiatry and Psychology Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th ed.), p. 785.

21. See Kaplan and Saddock's Synopsis of Psychiatry and Psychology Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th ed.), 1998.
22. Rollo, pp. 243-247.
23. G.R. No. 108763, February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198, 219.

24. Padilla-Rumbaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 157; Paz v. Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010.
25. Supra note 18.
26. Supra.
27. Supra note 11.
28. Supra note 20.
29. Rollo, p. 43.
30. Supra note 23, at 214.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 [Link]