Republic vs. CA (Molina), G.R. No.

108763, February 13, 1997

FACTS:
The case at bar challenges the decision of CA affirming the marriage of the respondent
Roridel Molina to Reynaldo Molina void in the ground of psychological incapacity. The couple
got married in 1985, after a year, Reynaldo manifested signs of immaturity and irresponsibility
both as husband and a father preferring to spend more time with friends whom he squandered
his money, depends on his parents for aid and assistance and was never honest with his wife in
regard to their finances. In 1986, the couple had an intense quarrel and as a result their
relationship was estranged. Roridel quit her work and went to live with her parents in Baguio
City in 1987 and a few weeks later, Reynaldo left her and their child. Since then he abandoned
them.

ISSUE: Whether or not the marriage is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The marriage between Roridel and Reynaldo subsists and remains valid. What
constitutes psychological incapacity is not mere showing of irreconcilable differences and
confliction personalities. It is indispensable that the parties must exhibit inclinations which
would not meet the essential marital responsibilites and duties due to some psychological
illness. Reynaldo’s action at the time of the marriage did not manifest such characteristics that
would comprise grounds for psychological incapacity. The evidence shown by Roridel merely
showed that she and her husband cannot get along with each other and had not shown gravity
of the problem neither its juridical antecedence nor its incurability. In addition, the expert
testimony by Dr Sison showed no incurable psychiatric disorder but only incompatibility which
is not considered as psychological incapacity.

The following are the guidelines as to the grounds of psychological incapacity laid set forth in
this case:
 burden of proof to show nullity belongs to the plaintiff
 root causes of the incapacity must be medically and clinically inclined
 such incapacity should be in existence at the time of the marriage
 such incapacity must be grave so as to disable the person in complying with the
essentials of marital obligations of marriage
 such incapacity must be embraced in Art. 68-71 as well as Art 220, 221 and 225 of the
Family Code
 decision of the National Matrimonial Appellate Court or the Catholic Church must be
respected
 court shall order the prosecuting attorney and the fiscal assigned to it to act on behalf of
the state.
 Brenda Marcos vs. Wilson Marcos, G.R. No. 136490, October 19, 2000

FACTS:
Brenda B Marcos the plaintiff married to Wilson Marcos in 1982 and they had five
children. Alleging that the husband does not supporting providing the marital obligation and
even hurting his wife physically abuse and was abandoned. Brenda then filed a case for the
nullity to the RTC for the reason that her husband is in psychological incapacity. RTC then
declared that the marriages is null and void under Art 36 which was however reverse by CA.

ISSUES:
Whether personal medical or psychological examination of the respondent by a
physician is a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The psychological is a ground for declaring the nullity of a marriage, may be established
by the totality of evidence presented. There are no requirements, however that the respondent
be examined by a physician or a psychologist as a condition sine qua non for such declaration.
Although this court is sufficiently convinced that respondent failed to provide material support
to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of his act
does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part.

There is absolutely no showing that his defects were already present at the inception of
the marriage or that they are incurable. Verily,the behavior of respondent can be attributed to
the fact that he had lost his job and was not gainfully employed for a period of six years. It was
during this period that he became intermittently drunk, failed to give material and moral
support and even left the family home. Thus, hos alleged psychological illness was traced only
to said period and not to the inception of the marriage.
 Chi Ming Tsoi vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 325, January 16, 1997

Facts:
Petitioner was married to private respondent (Gina Lao-Tsoi). During their 10 months of
cohabitation (i.e., from May 22, 1998 to March 15, 1989), they never have sexual intercourse.
The wife claimed that her husband was impotent that even they sleep in the same room and
bed, nothing happened. The wife initiated the nullity case of their marriage on the ground of
psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Though the husband does not
want to end their marriage, he claimed that he was not impotent as evidenced by his medical
report and that it is his wife who avoid to have sexual intercourse.

Issue:
WON Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitute
psychological incapacity.

Held:

Yes, Chi Ming Tsoi’s refusal to have sexual intercourse with his wife constitute
psychological incapacity. Supposed that wife refused to have sexual intercourse, the husband
could have asked his wife or discussed what was wrong or what is ailing her that she avoids him
everytime he wanted to have sexual intercourse. But he never did. Since he claimed that it was
his wife who has physical disorder, it is his burden to prove such claim.

One of the essential marital obligations is to procreate children through sexual

cooperation. A refusal of one party to consummate the marriage is considered a psychological
incapacity. Senseless and protracted refusal of one party to fulfill the above marital obligation is
equivalent to psychological incapacity.
 Nilda Navales vs. Reynaldo Navales, G.R. No. 167523, 27 June 2008

In 1986, Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. Because of
his fear that Nilda may be wed to an American, Reynaldo proposed to Nilda and they got
married in 1988. Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an illegitimate child out of wedlock. The 1st
year of their marriage went well until Nilda began to work when she neglected some of her
duties as a wife. She later worked as a gym instructor and according to Reynaldo’s allegations;
her job makes her flirt with her male clients. She also drives home with other guys even though
Reynaldo would be there to fetch her. She also projected herself as single. And she refused to
have a child with Reynaldo because that would only destroy her figure. Reynaldo then filed a
petition to have their marriage be annulled. He presented her cousin as a witness that attested
that Nilda was flirting with other guys even with Reynaldo’s presence. Reynaldo also presented
the findings of a psychologist who concluded that based on Nilda’s acts, Nilda is a
nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant, an alcoholic, and suffering
from anti-social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are incurable and are the
causes of Nilda’s psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to Reynaldo. Nilda
on her part attacked Reynaldo’s allegations. She said that it is actually Reynaldo who is a
womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of concubinage against him which was still
pending. She also said that she only needs the job in order to support herself because Reynaldo
is not supporting her. She also showed proof that she projected herself as a married woman
and that she handles an aerobics class which is exclusive to females only. The RTC and the CA
ruled in favor of Reynaldo.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the ground of
Nilda’s psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The petition must be granted because the State’s participation in this case is wanting.
There were no other pleadings, motions, or position papers filed by the Public Prosecutor or
OSG; and no controverting evidence presented by them before the judgment was rendered.
And even if the SC would consider the case based on the merits, the petition would still be
granted. The acts presented by Reynaldo by themselves are insufficient to establish a
psychological or mental defect that is serious, incurable or grave as contemplated by Article 36
of the Family Code. Article 36 contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance
of and to assume basic marital obligations. Mere “difficulty, “refusal”• or “neglect” in the
performance of marital obligations or “ill will”• on the part of the spouse is different from
“incapacity” rooted on some debilitating psychological condition or illness. Indeed,
irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and
irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity
under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume
the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is
contemplated by said rule. The SC also finds the finding of the psychological expert to be
insufficient to prove the PI of Nilda. The testimonies presented by people the expert
interviewed were not concretely established as the fact as to how those people came up with
their respective information was not as well shown. There is no proof as well that Nilda had had
sex with different guys – a condition for nymphomia. There being doubt as to Nilda’s PI the SC
ruled that this case be resolved in favor of the validity of marriage.
 TE VS. TE, G.R. NO. 161793, FEBRUARY 13, 2009

FACTS:
Petitioner Edward Te first met respondent Rowena Te in a gathering organized by the
Filipino-Chinese association in their college. Initially, he was attracted to Rowena’s close friend
but, as the latter already had a boyfriend, the young man decided to court Rowena, which
happened in January 1996. It was Rowena who asked that they elope but Edward refused
bickering that he was young and jobless. Her persistence, however, made him relent. They left
Manila and sailed to Cebu that month; he, providing their travel money of P80,000 and she,
purchasing the boat ticket.
They decided to go back to Manila in April 1996. Rowena proceeded to her uncle’s
house and Edward to his parents’ home. Eventually they got married but without a marriage
license. Edward was prohibited from getting out of the house unaccompanied and was
threatened by Rowena and her uncle. After a month, Edward escaped from the house, and
stayed with his parents. Edward’s parents wanted them to stay at their house but Rowena
refused and demanded that they have a separate abode. In June 1996, she said that it was
better for them to live separate lives and they then parted ways.

After four years in January 2000, Edward filed a petition for the annulment of his
marriage to Rowena on the basis of the latter’s psychological incapacity.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage contracted is void on the ground of psychological incapacity.

HELD:
The parties’ whirlwind relationship lasted more or less six months. They met in January
1996, eloped in March, exchanged marital vows in May, and parted ways in June. The
psychologist who provided expert testimony found both parties psychologically incapacitated.
Petitioner’s behavioral pattern falls under the classification of dependent personality disorder,
and respondent’s, that of the narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder

There is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be

personally examined by a physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a
finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like,
between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

The presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of

the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and
incurable presence of psychological incapacity.

Indeed, petitioner, afflicted with dependent personality disorder, cannot assume the
essential marital obligations of living together, observing love, respect and fidelity and
rendering help and support, for he is unable to make everyday decisions without advice from
others, and allows others to make most of his important decisions (such as where to live). As
clearly shown in this case, petitioner followed everything dictated to him by the persons around
him. He is insecure, weak and gullible, has no sense of his identity as a person, has no cohesive
self to speak of, and has no goals and clear direction in life.

As for the respondent, her being afflicted with antisocial personality disorder makes her
unable to assume the essential marital obligations on account for her disregard in the rights of
others, her abuse, mistreatment and control of others without remorse, and her tendency to
blame others. Moreover, as shown in this case, respondent is impulsive and domineering; she
had no qualms in manipulating petitioner with her threats of blackmail and of committing
suicide.

Both parties being afflicted with grave, severe and incurable psychological incapacity, the
precipitous marriage that they contracted on April 23, 1996 is thus, declared null and void.
 Ting vs. Velez-Ting, G.R. No. 166562, March 31, 2009, 582 SCRA 694 (supra)

Facts:
Benjamin Ting and Carmen Velez-Ting first met in 1972 while they were classmates in
medical school. They fell in love, and they were wed on July 26, 1975 in Cebu City when
respondent was already pregnant with their first child. On October 21, 1993, after being
married for more than 18 years to petitioner and while their youngest child was only two years
old, Carmen filed a verified petition before the RTC of Cebu City praying for the declaration of
nullity of their marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. She claimed that Benjamin
suffered from psychological incapacity even at the time of the celebration of their marriage,
which, however, only became manifest thereafter.
Carmens allegations of Benjamins psychological incapacity consisted of the following
manifestations:
1. Benjamins alcoholism, which adversely affected his family relationship and his profession;
2. Benjamins violent nature brought about by his excessive and regular drinking;
3. His compulsive gambling habit, as a result of which Benjamin found it necessary to sell the
family car twice and the property he inherited from his father in order to pay off his debts,
because he no longer had money to pay the same; and
4. Benjamins irresponsibility and immaturity as shown by his failure and refusal to give regular
financial support to his family.

In his answer, Benjamin denied being psychologically incapacitated. He maintained that

he is a respectable person, as his peers would confirm. He also pointed out that it was he who
often comforted and took care of their children, while Carmen played mahjong with her friends
twice a week. Both presented expert witnesses (psychiatrist) to refute each other’s claim. RTC
ruled in favor of the respondent declaring the marriage null and void.

Petitioner appealed to the CA. CA reversed RTC’s decision. Respondent filed a motion
for reconsideration, arguing that the Molina guidelines should not be applied to this case

Issues:
1. Whether the CA violated the rule on stare decisis when it refused to follow the guidelines set
forth under the Santos and Molina cases,

2. Whether or not the CA correctly ruled that the requirement of proof of psychological
incapacity for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family
Code has been liberalized,

3. Whether the CAs decision declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null
and void is in accordance with law and jurisprudence.
Held:
1. No. respondent’s argument that the doctrinal guidelines prescribed in Santos and Molina
should not be applied retroactively for being contrary to the principle of stare decisis is no
longer new.

2. The Case involving the application of Article 36 must be treated distinctly and judged not on
the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations but according to its own
attendant facts. 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.

3. There is no evidence that adduced by respondent insufficient to prove that petitioner is

psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more
particularly, that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage
eighteen (18) years ago.
 Antonio vs. Reyes, GR No. 155800, March 10, 2006

FACTS:

Leonilo Antonio, 26 years of age, and Marie Ivonne Reyes, 36 years of age met in 1989.
Barely a year after their first meeting, they got married at Manila City Hall and then a
subsequent church wedding at Pasig in December 1990. A child was born but died 5 months
later. Reyes persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation, income,
educational attainment and other events or things. She even did not conceal bearing an
illegitimate child, which she represented to her husband as adopted child of their family. They
were separated in August 1991 and after attempt for reconciliation, he finally left her for good
in November 1991. Petitioner then filed in 1993 a petition to have his marriage with Reyes
declared null and void anchored in Article 36 of the Family Code.

ISSUE: Whether Antonio can impose Article 36 of the Family Code as basis for declaring their
marriage null and void.

HELD:
Psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the obligations of
marriage as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them. The petitioner, aside from his
own testimony presented a psychiatrist and clinical psychologist who attested that constant
lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is abnormal and pathological and corroborated his
allegations on his wife’s behavior, which amounts to psychological incapacity. Respondent’s
fantastic ability to invent, fabricate stories and letters of fictitious characters enabled her to live
in a world of make-believe that made her psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her
incapable of giving meaning and significance to her marriage. The root causes of Reyes’
psychological incapacity have been medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven
by experts. The gravity of respondent’s psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a
restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the National Appellate
Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent. It would be difficult for
an inveterate pathological liar to commit the basic tenets of relationship between spouses
based on love, trust and respect. Furthermore, Reyes’ case is incurable considering that
petitioner tried to reconcile with her but her behavior remain unchanged.

Hence, the court conclude that petitioner has established his cause of action for
declaration of nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
 Suazo vs. Suazo, G.R. No. 164493, March 10, 2010

FACTS:
Angelito Suazo and Jocelyn Suazo were married when they were 16 years old only.
Without any means to support themselves, they lived with Angelito’s parents while Jocelyn
took odd jobs and Angelito refused to work and was most of the time drunk. Petitioner urged
him to find work but this often resulted to violent quarrels. A year after their marriage, Jocelyn
left Angelito. Angelito thereafter found another woman with whom he has since lived. 10 years
later, she filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 Psychological
incapacity. Jocelyn testified on the alleged physical beating she received. The expert witness
corroborated parts of Jocelyn’s testimony. Both her psychological report and testimony
concluded that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated. However, B was not personally
examined by the expert witness. The RTC annulled the marriage on the ground that Angelito is
unfit to comply with his marital obligation, such as “immaturity, i.e., lack of an effective sense
of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants (like refusal of the
husband to support the family or excessive dependence on parents or peer group approval) and
habitual alcoholism, or the condition by which a person lives for the next drink and the next
drinks” but the CA reversed it and held that the respondent may have failed to provide material
support to the family and has resorted to physical abuse, but it is still necessary to show that
they were manifestations of a deeper psychological malaise that was clinically or medically
identified. The theory of the psychologist that the respondent was suffering from an anti-social
personality syndrome at the time of the marriage was not the product of any adequate medical
or clinical investigation. The evidence that she got from the petitioner, anecdotal at best, could
equally show that the behavior of the respondent was due simply to causes like immaturity or
irresponsibility which are not equivalent to psychological incapacity, or the failure or refusal to
work could have been the result of rebelliousness on the part of one who felt that he had been
forced into a loveless marriage.

ISSUE:
Whether or not there is a basis to nullify Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito under Article 36 of
the Family Code.

HELD:
The Court finds the petition devoid of merit. The CA committed no reversible error of
law in setting aside the RTC decision, as no basis exists to declare Jocelyn’s marriage with
Angelito a nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence.

Jocelyn’s evidence is insufficient to establish Angelito’s psychological incapacity. The

psychologist evaluated Angelito’s psychological condition only in an indirect manner – she
derived all her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn whose bias for her cause
cannot of course be doubted. The psychlologist, using meager information coming from a
directly interested party, could not have secured a complete personality profile and could not
have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelito’s psychological
condition. While the report or evaluation may be conclusive with respect to Jocelyn’s
psychological condition, this is not true for Angelito’s. The methodology employed simply
cannot satisfy the required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate
a party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. Both the psychologist’s report and
testimony simply provided a general description of Angelito’s purported anti-social personality
disorder, supported by the characterization of this disorder as chronic, grave and incurable. The
psychologist was conspicuously silent, however, on the bases for her conclusion or the
particulars that gave rise to the characterization she gave. Jurisprudence holds that there must
be evidence showing a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological
incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. A’s testimony regarding the habitual
drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while indicative of psychological incapacity, do
not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity. All these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or
mere refusal to perform marital obligations.

It is not enough that the respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had

difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these
obligations. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor – an adverse integral element in the
respondent’s personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his
essential marital obligations – must be shown. Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the
performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from
incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness; irreconcilable
differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the
like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the
same may only be due to a person’s refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations
of marriage.
 Republic vs. De Gracia, G.R. No. 171557, February 12, 2014

FACTS:
Rodolfo and Natividad were married on February 15, 1969 at the Parish of St. Vincent
Ferrer in Salug, Zamboanga del Norte.They lived in Dapaon, Sindangan, Zamboanga del Norte
and have two (2) children, namely, Ma. Reynilda R. De Gracia (Ma. Reynilda) and Ma. Rizza R.
De Gracia (Ma. Rizza), who were born on August 20, 1969 and January 15, 1972, respectively.

Rodolfo filed a verified complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage (complaint)

before the RTC, alleging that Natividad was psychologically incapacitated to comply with her
essential marital obligations.

In support of his complaint, Rodolfo testified, among others, that he first met Natividad
when they were students and he was forced to marry her barely three (3) months into their
courtship in light of her accidental pregnancy.At the time of their marriage, he was 21 years old,
while Natividad was 18 years of age. He had no stable job and merely worked in the gambling
cockpits as "kristo" and "bangkero sa hantak." When he decided to join and train with the
army,Natividad left their conjugal home and sold their house without his consent. Thereafter,
Natividad moved to Dipolog City where she lived with a certain Engineer Terez (Terez), and
bore him a child named Julie Ann Terez. After cohabiting with Terez, Natividad contracted a
second marriage with another man named Antonio Mondarez and has lived since then with the
latter in Cagayan de Oro City.From the time Natividad abandoned them in 1972, Rodolfo was
left to take care of Ma. Reynilda and Ma. Rizzaand he exerted earnest efforts to save their
marriage which, however, proved futile because of Natividads psychological incapacity that
appeared to be incurable.

Both parties underwent psychological examination. Dr. Zalsos stated that both Rodolfo
and Natividad were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital
obligations, finding that both parties suffered from "utter emotional immaturity which is
unusual and unacceptable behavior considered as deviant from persons who abide by
established norms of conduct.

The OSG, representing petitioner Republic of the Philippines (Republic), filed an

oppositionto the complaint, contending that the acts committed by Natividad did not
demonstrate psychological incapacity as contemplated by law, but are mere grounds for legal
separation under the Family Code.

The RTC declared the marriage between Rodolfo and Natividad void on the ground of
psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it concluded that Natividad could not have known, much
more comprehend the marital obligations she was assuming, or, knowing them, could not have
given a valid assumption thereof.
 The Republic appealed to the CA, averring that there was no showing that Natividads
personality traits constituted psychological incapacity as envisaged under Article 36 of the
Family Code, and that the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive upon the court.

The CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC, finding that while Natividads emotional
immaturity, irresponsibility and promiscuity by themselves do not necessarily equate to
psychological incapacity, "their degree or severity, as duly testified to by Dr. Zalsos, has
sufficiently established a case of psychological disorder so profound as to render Natividad
incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations."

The Republic moved for reconsideration which was, however, denied hence, the instant
petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:
Did the CA err in sustaining the RTCs finding of psychological incapacity?

HELD:
"Psychological incapacity," as a ground to nullify a marriage under Article 36of the
Family Code, should refer to no less than a mental not merely physical incapacity that causes a
party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed
and discharged by the parties to the marriage which, as so expressed in Article 68of the Family
Code, among others,include their mutual obligations to live together, observe love, respect and
fidelity and render help and support. There is hardly any doubt that the intendment of the law
has been to confine the meaning of "psychological incapacity" to the most serious cases of
personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning
and significance to the marriage.

Keeping with these principles, the Court, in Dedel v. CA, 466 Phil. 226) held that therein
respondents emotional immaturity and irresponsibility could not be equated with psychological
incapacity as it was not shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality
which make her completely unable to discharge the essential marital obligations of the marital
state, not merely due to her youth, immaturity or sexual promiscuity. Based on the evidence
presented, there exists insufficient factual or legal basis to conclude that Natividads emotional
immaturity, irresponsibility, or even sexual promiscuity, can be equated with psychological
incapacity.

The RTC, as affirmed by the CA, heavily relied on the psychiatric evaluation report of Dr.
Zalsos which does not, however, explain in reasonable detail how Natividads condition could be
characterized as grave, deeply-rooted, and incurable within the parameters of psychological
incapacity jurisprudence. Aside from failing to disclose the types of psychological tests which
she administered on Natividad, Dr. Zalsos failed to identify in her report the root cause of
Natividad's condition and to show that it existed at the time of the parties' marriage. Neither
was the gravity or seriousness of Natividad's behavior in relation to her failure to perform the
essential marital obligations sufficiently described in Dr. Zalsos's report. Further, the finding
contained therein on the incurability of Natividad's condition remains unsupported by any
factual or scientific basis and, hence, appears to be drawn out as a bare conclusion and even
self-serving. In the same vein, Dr. Zalsos's testimony during trial, which is essentially a
reiteration of her report, also fails to convince the Court of her conclusion that Natividad was
psychologically incapacitated. Verily, although expert opinions furnished by psychologists
regarding the psychological temperament of parties are usually given considerable weight by
the courts, the existence of psychological incapacity must still be proven by independent
evidence.After poring over the records, the Court, however, does not find any such evidence
sufficient enough to uphold the court a quo's nullity declaration.

To the Court's mind, Natividad's refusal to live with Rodolfo and to assume her duties as wife
and mother as well as her emotional immaturity, irresponsibility and infidelity do not rise to the
level of psychological incapacity that would justify the nullification of the parties' marriage.
Indeed, to be declared clinically or medically incurable is one thing; to refuse or be reluctant to
perform one's duties is another. Psychological incapacity refers only to the most serious cases
of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give
meaning and significance to the marriage. In the final analysis, the Court does not perceive a
disorder of this nature to exist in the present case. Thus, for these reasons, coupled too with
the recognition that marriage is an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family.