Antonio vs. Reyes
Antonio vs. Reyes
Antonio vs. Reyes
SUPREME COURT
Manila
THIRD DIVISION
G.R. No. 155800
Antecedent Facts
Deceit to the depth and breadth unveiled in the following pages, dark and
years old and respondent was 36 years of age. Barely a year after their
irrational as in the modern noir tale, dims any trace of certitude on the
first meeting, they got married before a minister of the Gospel 4 at the
Manila City Hall, and through a subsequent church wedding 5 at the Sta.
Rosa de Lima Parish, Bagong Ilog, Pasig, Metro Manila on 6 December
The Petition
for
Review
on
Certiorari assails
1990.6 Out of their union, a child was born on 19 April 1991, who sadly
died five (5) months later.
2001 and 24 October 2002. The Court of Appeals had reversed the
judgment3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati declaring the
respondent declared null and void. He anchored his petition for nullity on
Article
36
of
the
Family
Code
alleging
that
respondent
was
respondent herself was the one who wrote and sent the letters to him
when she admitted the truth in one of their quarrels.17 He likewise realized
that Babes Santos and Via Marquez were only figments of her
with Blackgold.18
altered her payslip to make it appear that she earned a higher income.
son, and instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of
She bought a sala set from a public market but told petitioner that she
her family. She only confessed the truth about the boys parentage when
10
(2) She fabricated a story that her brother-in-law, Edwin David, attempted
to rape and kill her when in fact, no such incident occurred.12
(3) She misrepresented herself as a psychiatrist to her obstetrician, Dr.
Consuelo Gardiner, and told some of her friends that she graduated with
a degree in psychology, when she was neither.13
false pretexts.20
(7) She exhibited insecurities and jealousies over him to the extent of
calling up his officemates to monitor his whereabouts. When he could no
longer take her unusual behavior, he separated from her in August 1991.
He tried to attempt a reconciliation but since her behavior did not change,
he finally left her for good in November 1991.21
the same vein, she postulated that a luncheon show was held at the
Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, who stated, based on the tests
shy and conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed
15
(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, and
further
asserted
that
respondents
extreme
jealousy
was
also
(5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her
basis for her to suspect that petitioner was having an affair with another
and the writers thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the
Recto political clan was a resident of the United States while Babes
psychologically
incapacitated
to
perform
her
essential
marital
obligations.23
(6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but
In opposing the petition, respondent claimed that she performed her
averred that she merely asked the latter in a diplomatic matter if she was
the one asking for chocolates from petitioner, and not to monitor her
asserted that there was no truth to the allegation that she fabricated
husbands whereabouts.30
stories, told lies and invented personalities. 24 She presented her version,
(7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported
thus:
prior to their marriage, the other lies attributed to her by petitioner were
(2) She told petitioner about Davids attempt to rape and kill her because
mostly hearsay and unconvincing. Her stance was that the totality of the
she surmised such intent from Davids act of touching her back and
(3) She was actually a BS Banking and Finance graduate and had been
teaching psychology at the Pasig Catholic School for two (2) years. 27
(4) She was a free-lance voice talent of Aris de las Alas, an executive
assistant,33together
producer of Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with
Johnson, and Traders Royal Bank. She told petitioner she was a
Blackgold recording artist although she was not under contract with the
company, yet she reported to the Blackgold office after office hours. She
poor control of impulses, which are signs that might point to the presence
claimed that a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at the
28
with
the
screening
procedures
and
the
In rebuttal, Dr. Lopez asseverated that there were flaws in the evaluation
conducted by Dr. Reyes as (i) he was not the one who administered and
of Republic
of only one instrument called CPRS which was not reliable because a
35
elevated the case to this Court. He contends herein that the evidence
of the trial court regarding the credibility of witnesses are entitled to great
meaning and significance to her marriage. 36 The trial court thus declared
respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had an
Shortly before the trial court rendered its decision, the Metropolitan
guided by the fact that the Court of Appeals did not dispute the veracity of
the parties, on the ground of lack of due discretion on the part of the
parties. During the pendency of the appeal before the Court of Appeals,
37
the operative facts. Still, the crucial question remains as to whether the
1997
ruling
in Republic
Catholic tribunals. Still, the appellate court reversed the RTCs judgment.
While conceding that respondent may not have been completely honest
with petitioner, the Court of Appeals nevertheless held that the totality of
bar.46 Since Molinawas decided in 1997, the Supreme Court has yet to
45
and
in
v.
Court
indeed
reversing
of
the
the
Appeals44 (also
Court
RTC
of
in
known
Appeals
the
as
cited
case
at
ground for divorce under the Divorce Law of 1917, 53 but a marriage where
the Family Code.47 In fact, even before Molina was handed down, there
"either party was of unsound mind" at the time of its celebration was cited
was only one case, Chi Ming Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, wherein the Court
48
the Supreme Court is concerned. Yet what Molina and the succeeding
spouse was not among the grounds for declaring a marriage void ab
49
room for a decree of nullity under the proper circumstances. Molina did
not foreclose the grant of a decree of nullity under Article 36, even as it
consent, just like insanity impinges on consent freely given which is one
of the essential requisites of a contract. 59 The initial common consensus
marriage, which makes the marriage only voidable under Article 45 (5) of
has been consistently recognized by this Court that the intent of the
the Civil Code x x x [and thus] should have been a cause for annulment
Family Code committee was to design the law as to allow some resiliency
of the marriage only."62 At the same time, Tolentino noted "[it] would be
applicability
generis. Rather, the preference of the revision committee was for "the
63
of
the
provision
under
the
principle
ofejusdem
the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision was
taken from Canon Law."70
which
have
been
consistently
applied
since
perception
this
Article 36. All too frequently, this Court and lower courts, in denying
disavow Molina at present, and indeed the disposition of this case shall
the Constitution, which respectively state that "[t]he State recognizes the
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total developmen[t]," and
of
each
situation,
arising
from
family and shall be protected by the State." These provisions highlight the
Of particular notice has been the citation of the Court, first in Santos then
institution of marriage.
But the Constitution itself does not establish the parameters of state
family. It remains the province of the legislature to define all legal aspects
of marriage and prescribe the strategy and the modalities to protect it,
Catholic
subsequent
adheres to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This being the case, it
provisions that protect marriage and the family. This has been
which defines marriage and the family, spells out the corresponding legal
of Article 36. Even though the concept may have been derived from
effects, imposes the limitations that affect married and family life, as well
canon law, its incorporation into the Family Code and subsequent judicial
as prescribes the grounds for declaration of nullity and those for legal
Church
doctrine
in
the
formulation
and
separation. While it may appear that the judicial denial of a petition for
dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our
solidarity.
These are the legal premises that inform us as we decide the present
petition.
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could
clinical psychologists.
illness was existing when the parties exchanged their "I dos." The
and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code
but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior
thereto.
psychological nature."
harmonize our civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to
Even the appellate court acknowledged that respondent was not totally
79
behalf of the State to take steps to prevent collusion between the parties
and to take care that evidence is not fabricated or suppressed. Obviously,
event, the fiscals participation in the hearings before the trial court is
impressed with State interest, the Family Code likewise requires the
participation of the State, through the prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or
As earlier noted, the factual findings of the RTC are now deemed binding
on this Court, owing to the great weight accorded to the opinion of the
primary trier of facts, and the refusal of the Court of Appeals to dispute
initiatory complaint alleged that respondent, from the start, had exhibited
in Molina.
letters to petitioner using fictitious names, and of lying about her actual
among others.81
alleged singing career. He also presented two (2) expert witnesses from
Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that due to the behavior of the
WITNESS:
xxx
Given that as a fact, which is only based on the affidavit provided to me, I
can say that there are a couple of things that [are] terribly wrong with the
Q- Mr. witness, based on the testimony of Mr. Levy Mendoza, who is the
third witness for the petitioner, testified that the respondent has been
calling up the petitioners officemates and ask him (sic) on the activities of
pathological. x x x
the petitioner and ask him on the behavior of the petitioner. And this is
specifically stated on page six (6) of the transcript of stenographic notes,
Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that because of these actuations of
which means that there is no actual basis on her suspect (sic) that her
of her marriage?
A- Well, persistent lying violates the respect that one owes towards
same way as we also lie every now and then; but everything that is
another. The lack of concern, the lack of love towards the person, and it
reality to the fact that the husband is having an affair with another woman
and if she persistently believes that the husband is having an affair with
generally communicate are our thoughts and feelings. But then when one
talks and expresse[s] their feelings, [you] are expected to tell the truth.
jealousy.
And therefore, if you constantly lie, what do you think is going to happen
as far as this relationship is concerned. Therefore, it undermines that
The other witness, Dr. Lopez, was presented to establish not only the
She practically lived in a world of make believe making her therefore not
liar, that [she continues] to lie [and] she loves to fabricate about herself." 84
clearly existed at the time of and even before the celebration of marriage.
She fabricated friends and made up letters from fictitious characters well
before she married petitioner. Likewise, she kept petitioner in the dark
about her natural childs real parentage as she only confessed when the
Drs. Abcede
and
Lopezs
common
conclusion
of
respondents
is immediately discernible that the parties had shared only a little over a
Also, with the totality of the evidence presented as basis, the trial court
wise:
To the mind of the Court, all of the above are indications that respondent
It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted
marriage. It has been shown clearly from her actuations that respondent
has that propensity for telling lies about almost anything, be it her
truth from fiction, or at least abide by the truth. Petitioners witnesses and
occupation, her state of health, her singing abilities, her income, etc. She
has this fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities.
telling lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according to
love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support. As noted
by the trial court, it is difficult to see how an inveterate pathological liar
allegedly tried her best to effect a reconciliation, she had amply exhibited
her ability to perform her marital obligations. We are not convinced. Given
the nature of her psychological condition, her willingness to remain in the
Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into
marriage hardly banishes nay extenuates her lack of capacity to fulfill the
consideration the fact that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the
Catholic Church. The appellate court apparently deemed this detail totally
states that a marriage may be annulled if the consent of either party was
obtained by fraud, and Article 46 which enumerates the circumstances
constituting fraud under the previous article, clarifies that "no other
chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the
under Articles 45 (3) and 46. The fraud under Article 45(3) vitiates the
consent of the spouse who is lied to, and does not allude to vitiated
consent.
the trial court, of the veracity of petitioners allegations. Had the trial court
Tribunal pronounced:
matter would have diminished persuasive value. After all, it is the factual
findings of the judicial trier of facts, and not that of the canonical courts,
The FACTS in the Case sufficiently prove with the certitude required by
did not appear certain that respondents condition was incurable and that
law that based on the depositions of the Partes in Causa and premised
Petitioner points out that one month after he and his wife initially
incurable.
however to prove as well the fact of grave lack of due discretion on the
only by the trial court, but also by canonical bodies. Yet, we must clarify
or incurable.
the proper import of the Church rulings annulling the marriage in this
case. They hold sway since they are drawn from a similar recognition, as
But on careful examination, there was good reason for the experts
taciturnity on this point.
The petitioners expert witnesses testified in 1994 and 1995, and the trial
well before Molina was promulgated in 1997 and made explicit the
requirement that the psychological incapacity must be shown to be
courts of a law constitutes a part of that law as of the date the statute in
On the other hand, the Court in Santos, which was decided in January
1995, began its discussion by first citing the deliberations of the Family
because there was no legal necessity yet to elicit such a declaration and
expert witnesses would not have seen the need to adduce a diagnosis of
We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, and that the
respondents
incurable.
Certainly, Santos did not clearly mandate that the incurability of the
nullity. At least, there was no jurisprudential clarity at the time of the trial
impelling cause to present evidence to that effect at the time this case
of this case and the subsequent promulgation of the trial courts decision
was tried by the RTC more than ten (10) years ago. From the totality of
with Molina in 1997, at a time when this case was on appellate review, or
petitioner. Any lingering doubts are further dispelled by the fact that the
psychological
incapacity
was
Court decides these cases on legal reasons and not vapid sentimentality.
All told, we conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action
for declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC
correctly ruled, and the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court.
REINSTATED. No costs.
does the marital bond as having been inexistent in the first place. It is
possible that respondent, despite her psychological state, remains in love
with petitioner, as exhibited by her persistent challenge to the petition for
SO ORDERED.