Scribd
Upload
128 views

Bier Vs Bier

1) The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage, claiming his wife was psychologically incapacitated. 2) The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner did not meet the evidentiary burden. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence did not sufficiently establish the wife's alleged narcissistic personality disorder existed at the start of the marriage or was rooted in an incapacitating condition. The irregular living arrangement may have contributed to relationship problems. Annulment was denied and the marriage remained valid.

Uploaded by

wesleybooks
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
128 views

Bier Vs Bier

1) The petitioner filed for annulment of his marriage, claiming his wife was psychologically incapacitated. 2) The trial court granted the annulment but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding petitioner did not meet the evidentiary burden. 3) The Supreme Court affirmed, finding the evidence did not sufficiently establish the wife's alleged narcissistic personality disorder existed at the start of the marriage or was rooted in an incapacitating condition. The irregular living arrangement may have contributed to relationship problems. Annulment was denied and the marriage remained valid.

Uploaded by

wesleybooks
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

PERSONS ARTICLE 36 Psychological Incapacity

BIER vs BIER
RENNE ENRIQUE BIER, petitioner, vs. MA. LOURDES A. BIER and THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents G.R. No. 173294 February 27, 2008
THE CASE.
FACTS
 6 months after their meeting, petitioner Renne Bier and respondent Ma Lourdes Bier were married.
 Everything went well within the first 3 years of their marriage.
 Petitioner was based in Saudi Arabia as electronics technician, so they decided to maintain 2 residences.
 They took turns in shuttling between the Philippines and Saudi Arabia just so they could spend time together.
 The couple started experiencing problems after 3 years. According to petitioner, respondent ceased to be the
person he knew and married. Wife started to become aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her
friends than him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. She became an alcoholic
and chain smoker. She also started neglecting her husband’s needs and the upkeep of their home and became an
absentee wife. They frequently quarreled, and respondent suddenly left for the US on April 10, 1997. Husband has
not heard from her since.
 Husband filed petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that wife was psychologically
incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner.
RTC RULING Granted the petition and declared the marriage null and void.
CA RULING Reversed the ruling of RTC and held that petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Molina case. .
ISSUE Whether or not the totality of the evidence presented was enough to establish that respondent was psychologically
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations. NO
SC RULING
The trial court’s decision to declare the parties’ marriage void ab initio by reason of psychological incapacity was clearly and
manifestly erroneous as it overlooked the need to show the gravity, root cause and incurability of respondent’s psychological
incapacity and that it was already present at the inception of the marriage.

Petition had burden of proving the nullity of his marriage with respondent. He failed to discharge it. The evidence for petitioner
consisted of his OWN TESTIMONY and that of his brother, Roderico Bier. He also presented as evidence a psychological report
written by Dr. Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who also testified on the matters contained therein. Dr. Tayag’s report, which found
respondent to be suffering from psychological incapacity, particularly a narcissistic personality disorder, relied only on the
information fed by the petitioner. This was admitted by petitioner in his petition for review on certiorari. In both instances,
petitioner reasoned out that the personal examination of respondent was impossible as her whereabouts were unknown
despite diligent efforts on his part to find her. Consequently, Dr. Tayag’s report was really hearsay evidence since she had no
personal knowledge of the alleged facts she was testifying on. Her testimony should have thus been dismissed for being
unscientific and unreliable.

Furthermore, the report also failed to IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSE of respondent’s NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY disorder and to
prove that it existed at the INCEPTION of the marriage. Although there is no requirement that a party to be declared
psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician, there is nevertheless still a need to prove the
psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder.

In the case at bar, petitioner was able to establish that respondent was remiss in her duties as a wife and had become a happy-
go-lucky woman who failed to attend to her husband’s needs and who eventually abandoned him. However, the totality of her
acts, as testified to by petitioner and his brother, was not tantamount to a psychological incapacity. Habitual alcoholishm, chain
smoking, failure or refusal to meet one’s duties and responsibilities do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of
psychological incapacity.

The unusual arrangement of taking turns in going back and forth between the Philippines and Saudi Arabia took a heavy toll on
their relationship. They barely saw and spent time with each other. Respondent could have gotten used to petitioner’s absence.

We agree with CA that the change in respondent’s feelings towards petitioner could hardly be described as psychological illness.
It was not enough that respondent had difficulty or was unwilling to perform the same. Consequently, we are unconvinced that
respondent’s condition was rooted in some incapacitating or debilitating disorder.

Petition is denied. Resolution of CA is affirmed. (The marriage remains valid and subsisting.)

You might also like