TITLE: Republic v.
Claur
GR NO. 2468868
DATE: February 12, 2022
SUBJECT Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
MATTER:
DOCTRINES: 1. In Republic v. Mola Cruz, the Court stressed that the findings of
the trial court on the existence or non-existence of a party's
psychological incapacity should be final and binding for as long
as such findings and evaluation of the testimonies of witnesses
and other evidence are not shown to be clearly and manifestly
erroneous.
2. Tan-Andal, expert opinion based on otherwise hearsay evidence
could still be admitted if the facts are "of a type reasonably relied
upon by experts in the particular field in forming opinions or
inferences upon a subject." The Court has ruled that doctors,
within their acknowledged field of expertise, can diagnose the
psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors
culled from various sources
FACTS: The case involves the Republic of the Philippines (petitioner) and
Angelique Pearl O. Claur and Mark A. Claur (respondents). A petition for
review on certiorari was filed to contest the Court of Appeals' decisions
in CA-G.R. CV No. 107744. The Regional Trial Court declared the
marriage between Angelique Pearl and Mark void ab initio due to
psychological incapacity. The marriage occurred on January 3, 2009, at
the Ascension Chapel of Villa Escudero. Angelique Pearl claimed both
parties were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations.
Their relationship was tumultuous, marked by jealousy, manipulation,
and physical violence, beginning in high school. They married after
Angelique Pearl became pregnant, facing challenges such as financial
strain and emotional instability. Testimonies from family members and a
psychiatrist indicated severe psychological disorders in both parties. The
Regional Trial Court granted the petition for nullity of marriage on
November 26, 2015. The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)
appealed, arguing the trial court's findings were biased. The Court of
Appeals upheld the trial court's decision on January 30, 2018, and
denied the OSG's motion for reconsideration on April 11, 2019.
ISSUE/S: Did the evidence on record sufficiently support the petition of Angelique
Pearl O. Claur for declaration of nullity of her marriage with Mark A.
Claur on ground of psychological incapacity?
RULING: YES. The totality of evidence on record clearly and convincingly
establishes the psychological incapacity of both Angelique Pearl
and Mark
Here, the Republic failed to provide compelling reason to convince the
Court to deviate from the findings of the trial court, as affirmed by the
Court of Appeals. The totality of evidence presented clearly and
convincingly show that both Mark and Angelique Pearl are
psychologically incapacitated from discharging their respective duties as
husband and wife.
First. Their psychological incapacity has juridical antecedence since
their personality structures were manifest even before the celebration of
their marriage.
Angelique Pearl admitted she got attracted to Mark despite his notoriety
when they were still in high school. Their relationship had already been
"rocky" since the beginning. Mark was too jealous and obsessed with
her, yet, he still flirted with other women. When Mark tried to break-up
with her, she threatened to commit suicide. On the other hand, when
she tried to break up with Mark, he pressured her into staying together.
Clearly, the respective personality structures of Angelique Pearl and
Mark were already present even before they got married. Their
dysfunctional acts when they were in a boyfriend – girlfriend relationship
and even when they were already husband and wife have made it
impossible for either of them to understand and, more important, to
comply with their essential marital obligations.
Second. The gravity of their condition cannot be categorized as mild
characterological peculiarities, mood changes, and mere occasional
emotional outbursts.
They resented each other and it never failed to manifest each time.
Their relationship started from being "rocky", to turbulent, to violent.
Neither of them accorded the other the love and respect that was due to
a spouse or life partner. Their incongruity depicted a pattern of
persistent failure to be a loving, faithful, respectful and supportive
spouse. As shown, their misunderstandings had escalated to frequent
quarrels, cursing, and worst, physical violence. Surely, we cannot, by
any means, consider them as mere refusal, neglect, or difficulty in the
performance of their marital obligations.
Third. Their respective personality structures are "incurable" in the
legal sense. Their conditions prevented them from complying with their
marital obligations as embodied in the Family Code, particularly the
observance of mutual love, respect and fidelity, and rendering mutual
help and support.
Their behavior before and after their wedding clearly manifests their
psychological incapacity and show their utter lack of willingness to
properly treat each other as husband and wife. Their dysfunctional on
and off relationship, though solemnized, was not salvaged by their
marriage. On the contrary, their formalized union only served to trap
both of them in a perpetually loveless relationship. They are so
incompatible and antagonistic toward each other that the only result of
their marriage would be its inevitable and irreparable breakdown.
True, physical and verbal abuse, neglect and abandonment of spouse
and children, or acts of infidelity including adultery or concubinage, each
constitutes a ground for legal separation. But where each one of these
grounds or a combination thereof, at the same time, manifests
psychological incapacity that had been existing even prior to marriage,
the court may void the marriage on ground of psychological incapacity
under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Here, Mark's acts of infidelity, abuse, neglect, and abandonment, on one
hand, and Angelique Pearl's suicidal behavior, ill temper, and verbal and
physical abuse, on the other, collectively manifest both of their
psychological incapacity in the legal sense. They satisfy the criteria of
juridical antecedence, gravity, and incurability. Their behavioral patterns
and personality structures clearly show that they are psychologically
incapacitated from fulfilling their obligations as husband and wife and as
parents to their son.
Fourth. The findings of Dr. Castillo-Carcereny support this conclusion.
To emphasize though, Tan-Andal categorically declared that the
testimony of a medical expert is no longer required for purposes of
establishing psychological incapacity as a legal concept. We no longer
look at psychological incapacity as a medical condition or personality
disorder, the root cause of which has to be identified. Instead, courts
may rely on the testimonies of ordinary witnesses for purposes of
determining whether one or both spouses are psychologically
incapacitated.
Verily, the fact alone that Dr. Castillo-Carcereny was not able to
personally interview and administer tests on Mark does not render her
findings inadmissible. As stated in Tan-Andal, expert opinion based on
otherwise hearsay evidence could still be admitted if the facts are "of a
type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field in forming
opinions or inferences upon a subject." The Court has ruled that doctors,
within their acknowledged field of expertise, can diagnose the
psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors culled
from various sources.
Here, Dr. Castillo-Carcereny still managed to draw a reasonable
conclusion on Mark's condition based on the information which
Angelique Pearl and her father Antonio had given her. As held in Tan-
Andal, this method of data collection, i.e., clinical interviews of patients
and collaterals, remains to be a principal technique in diagnosing
psychiatric disorders up to this date. Thus, the information she gathered
were "of a type reasonably relied upon by experts", hence, (her) expert
opinion based thereon may be admitted in evidence."
Thus, based on the evidence on record and applying Article 36 of the
Family Code (as clarified in the recent landmark case of Tan-Andal), we
affirm the uniform findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that
there is clear and convincing evidence here to support the conclusion
that Angelique Pearl and Mark are psychologically incapacitated, in the
legal sense, from complying with their marital obligations. Consequently,
the marital union between them is declared void ab initio. As correctly
underscored by the Court of Appeals:
This court has been convinced that the quantum of evidence
sufficient to declare the nullity of marriage was met in this case. To
reiterate, this court shuns granting petitions for declaration of nullity of
marriage unless on the most serious cases of personality disorders
clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage, x x x. However, it cannot ignore the
fact that the totality of evidence shows that the parties are indeed
suffering from psychological incapacities which are grave,
permanent or incurable, and ha[ve] juridical antecedence. In this
particular case, it is distinctly clear that [the] spouses have failed to
establish a functional family because of their failure to perform their
essential marital obligations. There is no more love and respect and
this is not the kind of family that the State wants to preserve.
