TITLE: Santos-Gantan v.

Gantan

GR NO. 225193

DATE: October 14, 2020

SUBJECT Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage

MATTER:

DOCTRINES: 1. Psychological incapacity refers to a mental incapacity that

causes a party to be non-cognitive of the basic marital covenants
which must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the
marriage. As expressed by Article 68 of the Family Code, these
marital covenants include their mutual obligations to live
together, observe love, respect, and fidelity and to help and
support each other. The law has intended to confine
"psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of
personality disorders that clearly demonstrate an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the
marriage.] It is the inability to understand the obligations of
marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them.
2. To constitute psychological incapacity, the personality disorder
must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence;
and (c) incurability. It 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

3. There is no requirement that the person to be declared

psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a
physician.

4. Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes ordains that the non-examination of

one of the parties will not automatically render as hearsay or
invalidate the findings of the examining psychiatrist or
psychologist, since marriage, by its very definition, necessarily
involves only two (2) persons. As such, the totality of the
behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is
generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.

5. The absence of such personal examination is not fatal so long as

the totality of evidence sufficiently supports a finding of
psychological incapacity. Consequently, petitioner bears the
burden of proving the gravity, juridical antecedence, and
incurability of respondent spouse's psychological incapacity.
6. In dissolving marital bonds on ground of psychological incapacity
 of either spouse, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of
families. By preventing a person who is afflicted with a
psychological disorder and incapable of complying with the
essential marital obligations from remaining in that sacred bond,
the Court is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage. In the
first place, there is no marriage to speak of since it is void from
the very beginning.

FACTS: Petitioner Bernardine S. Santos-Gantan and respondent John-Ross C.

Gantan first met in 1999. They were next-door neighbors and knew each
other long before their relationship started. They were married twice by
civil rites: first on May 28, 2002, in Angeles City, and then on December
18, 2002, in Baguio City. At the time of marriage, petitioner was 32 years
old, and respondent was 22 years old. They had no children or conjugal
properties.

Petitioner observed that respondent had been irresponsible, irritable,

and incapable of holding a steady job even before marriage.
Respondent’s behavior worsened after marriage: he was often violent,
especially when intoxicated, engaged in infidelities, and verbally abused
the petitioner, calling her derogatory names. Respondent left for Korea
in 2006, where he had an affair that led to their separation upon his
return.

Petitioner sought assessment from Dr. Martha Johanna Dela Cruz, a

clinical psychologist, who diagnosed respondent with “Axis II Anti-Social
Personality Disorder.” Dr. Dela Cruz’s diagnosis was based on
information gathered from petitioner and close associates, as
respondent and his parents did not participate in the evaluation.On
March 23, 2010, petitioner filed for declaration of nullity of marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Regional Trial Court Branch
73, Olongapo City, granted the petition on February 23, 2012, declaring
the marriage void ab initio.

ISSUE/S: 1. Did the Court of Appeals commit reversible error when it

reversed the trial court's decision granting the petition for
declaration of nullity of her marriage with respondent?
2. Whether or not petitions for nullification of marriage under Article
36 of the family code should be judged by courts in a case to
case basis?

RULING: 1. YES. The CA committed reversible error when it reversed

the trial court's decision granting the petition for declaration
of nullity of her marriage with respondent.

The fact that Dr. Dela Cruz was not able to personally examine
respondent per se does not nullify her finding of psychological
incapacity, especially when such omission was attributable to
respondent's own failure or refusal to appear for interview despite
repeated invitations that he or his relatives had received. As for the
absence of respondent's parents, Dr. Dela Cruz aptly explained that they
could not be subjected to evaluation or examination as they were
already staying abroad as illegal aliens. Nonetheless, Dr. Dela Cruz'
assessment of respondent's condition cannot be considered prejudiced
and partial as it was based on information she gathered from petitioner
herself and the couple's relatives and common friends, and not merely
on information provided by petitioner alone.

It also bears noting that the procedures adopted by Dr. Dela Cruz in
his expert opinion, including the facts and data she used to come
up with his expert conclusions, are procedures, facts and data that
other psychologists rendering an opinion in relation to a petition
under Article 36, Family Code, would rely upon. This is because of
the very nature of Article 36 whereby the otherwise inadmissible
facts or data are the bread and butter of every psychiatric of
psychological expert opinion, that is, psychiatrists and
psychologists reasonably rely upon such type of facts and data in
rendering their opinions.

The Court rules that the totality of evidence presented here has
sufficiently established that respondent is afflicted with psychological
incapacity which hindered him from performing his duties as husband to
petitioner.

Petitioner testified on how respondent fail to observe mutual love,

respect, and fidelity, let alone, render mutual help and support to her.
She mainly averred that they were no longer living together as husband
and wife. Respondent had abandoned her and is already living with his
paramour and their daughter. He had been abusing her physically,
mentally, and emotionally. He had been having illicit affairs with older
and married women while ignoring and rejecting her need for love,
affection and intimacy. He often mocked, insulted and called her names,
such as "thin," "ugly," and "old hag." He was short-tempered and violent.
He frequently hurt or assaulted her physically, even causing her to get
hospitalized and suffer a miscarriage. His lackadaisical and irresponsible
attitude often caused his termination from employment and left him
jobless and unable to support the family. All these reflect his lack of
remorse, deception, impulsivity, irritability, aggressiveness, physical
assault and intimidation, reckless disregard for the safety of others,
unwillingness to meet normal standards for work, support and parenting,
and failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors.

To aid in her assessment of the couple's psychological condition, Dr.

Dela Cruz gave questionnaires to the other informants consisting of the
couple's friends and relatives. Their answers to the questionnaires
elicited the various behaviors which they reportedly observed from
respondent. Dr. Dela Cruz then collated and reflected this information in
her report.

Dr. Dela Cruz's clinical documentation indubitably showed that

respondent exhibited the following behaviors as observed by petitioner
and the other resource persons: anger, baiting and picking fights,
belittling, condescending and patronizing speech, blaming, bullying,
chaos manufacture, cheating, chronic broken promises, emotional
abuse, impulsiveness and impulsivity, lack of boundaries, lack of
conscience, manipulation, "not my fault" syndrome, objectification,
pathological lying, physical abuse, raging, violence and impulsive
aggression, testing, threats, and verbal abuse.

After keen assessment and evaluation of petitioner and information

gathered from the latter herself and other informants, Dr. Dela Cruz
diagnosed respondent to be suffering from "Axis II Anti-Social
Personality Disorder" characterized by a pervasive pattern of disregard
for and violation of the rights of others. She found that respondent was:
(1) deceitful, as indicated by his repeated lying and conning method to
achieve personal pleasure; (2) consistently irresponsible, as indicated by
his repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor
financial obligations; and (3) lacked remorse, as indicated by being
indifferent to or rationalizing his having hurt or mistreated others.

Dr. Dela Cruz showed a medical link between respondent's

psychological incapacity and the acts or behaviors that manifest the
same. Her testimony, as corroborated by petitioner, amply proved that
respondent's anti-social personality disorder made him deceitful,
irresponsible, remorseless, unfaithful, violent, ill-tempered, and
inconsiderate of other's safety. It was so grave and serious to the point
that it distorted his concept of marital relationship, thus, incapacitating
him to fully comprehend, assume, and carry out the essential marital
obligations. It has also caused great damage to the spouses' marital
union, as well as their social and personal relationships. She explained
that respondent's personality disorder was fully engraved into his system
and has rendered him unable to pursue fundamental adult life tasks,
including close and meaningful intimate relationship. It was clinically
permanent with a stable and longstanding pattern. She testified that its
root cause existed during respondent's teen years, arising from his
family set-up. Respondent's parents, being overseas workers, left him
under the care of his uncle. His family became dysfunctional over the
years, resulting in his loss of emotional and psychological continuity of
contact and attachment. Respondent carried this dysfunctional concept
of family on to his engagement and, later on, marriage with petitioner.

Ultimately, Dr. Dela Cruz concluded that respondent's personality

disorder was clinically permanent, incurable, grave and already existent
at the time of the celebration of his marriage to petitioner, albeit it
became manifest only during their marriage.

The trial court, therefore, correctly accorded evidentiary weight to Dr.

Dela Cruz' psychological evaluation and conclusions based on all the
vital information she gathered from petitioner and the couple's relatives
and common friends. Her findings were properly anchored on a holistic
psychological evaluation of the parties as individuals and as a married
couple and verified with other resource persons.

2. The Supreme Court held that petitions for nullification of

marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity as
provided under Article 36 of the Family Code must be
judged according to their own facts, guided by findings of
experts in the field of psychology and decisions by church
tribunals. This means that these kinds of petitions should
not be catered to in a "strait-jacketed" and one-size-fits-all
understanding and application.

Psychological incapacity refers to a mental incapacity that causes a

party to be non-cognitive of the basic marital covenants that must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage. As expressed
by Article 68 of the Family Code, these marital covenants include their
mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect, and fidelity,
and to help and support each other.

The law has intended to confine "psychological incapacity" to the most

serious cases of personality disorders that clearly demonstrate an utter
insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.
It is the inability to understand the obligations of marriage, as opposed to
a mere inability to comply with them.

It emphasized the principle governing the disposition of petitions for

declaration of nullity under Article 36, that each case must be judged,
not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations
but according to its own facts. With this, courts should interpret the
provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of
experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of
church tribunals.