Solidum V Republic

Hannamer and Grant were classmates that turned sweethearts.
After graduation, Hannamer started

living with Grant. At that time, Grant’s parents were fond of Hannamer for being hardworking and the
breadwinner of Grant’s family. However, things changed when she got pregnant and had to stop
working.
On 2003, Hannamer and Grant got married. Unemployed, Grant could not contribute a single centavo
for their living expenses, which were all shouldered by Hannamer’s mother.
When Hannamer’s mother decided to move in with the couple, the latter’s relationship turned sour
culminating to Hannamer leaving their house and staying with Grant’s relatives instead. From that time
on, Grant never visited nor sent financial support for Hannamer and their child. eventually, Hannamer
lost contact with Grant when she moved to another town with her mother and child.
Hannamer averred that Grant never worked, and only depended on his older siblings for financial
support. Despite not earning, Grant spent most of his time and money on gambling and going to
cockfights, instead of taking care of his family.
Based on the narration of Hannamer, Dr Revita diagnosed Grant with narcissistic personality disorder
with anti-social and dependent traits that is characterized by an overwhelming and grandiose sense of
self-importance.
Dr. Revita traced back the root of Grant’s disorder to his child hood; the kind of upbringing, family
atmosphere and environmental influences to which he was exposed during his early formative years.
Issue: whether or not Grant is psychologically incapacitated
Held: No.
Tan andal enunciates that psychological incapacity is not a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder
that must be proven through an expert witness. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of
the spouses before their marriage may testify on the behaviors they gave observed from the allegedly
incapacitated spouse.
Likewise, juridical antecedence of psychological incapacity may also be proven by ordinary witnesses
who can describe the incapacitated spouse’s past experiences or environment growing up, which may
have triggered one’s past particular behavior.
In any case, the gravity of psychological incapacity must be shown to have been caused by a genuinely
serious psychic cause. Thus, mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional
outbursts are still not accepted grounds that woul warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under
art 36 of the FC.
Tan andal aldal also mofidied the requirement of incurability- that psychological incapacity under art 36
of the FC must no be incurable, not in the medical, but in the legal sense. Thus, it must be enduring and
persistent with respect to a specific partner, that the only result of the union would be the inevitable
and irreparably breakdown of the marriage.
Guided by the foregoing measure, this court finds that Hannamer failed to sufficiently prove that Grant
is psychologically incapacitated to comply with one’s essential marital obligations.
Hannamer’s testimony that (1) she was the breadwinner of Grant’s family, while Grant never worked
and only spent his time in gambling and cockfighting (2) their relationship turned sour after she got
pregnant (3) Grant’s parents were no longer fond of her for being an additional mouth to feed; (4) that
Grant asked her to leave with her mother and child after being instructed by his parents; and (5) even
after their forced departure, Grant did not bother to go after her and their child—failed to prove Grant’s
alleged psychological incapacity.
These allegations do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. Irreconcilable differences,

sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by
themselves prove the existence of psychological incapacity under art 36 of the FC.
In the case at bar, we agree with the CA in holding that the psychological report is bereft of any factual
basis proving Grant’s psychological incapacity. It fails to prove the enduring aspects of Grant’s
personality called “personality structure” that manifest itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that
render him unable to discharge the essential marital obligations.
Notably, there is no evidence on record proving that Grant’s alleged psychological incapacity existed
prior to their marriage.
Verily, Hannamer also failed to provide any background on Grant’s past experiences or environment
growing up that could have triggered his behavior. Dr. Revita’s findings were not related or linked to
Grant’s alleged psychological incapacity except in a general way.
A reading of the findings reveals that Dr. Revita’s findings are lacking in data as to Grant’s personality
structure and how it incapacitates him to perform the essential marital obligations. Neither does it
prove that Grant’s psychological incapacity is due to a genuine psychic cause. To be sure, the report
must clearly specify Grant’s actions which are indicative of his alleged psychological incapacity.
In view of the absence of evidence on Grant’s personality structure, it is clear that Dr. Revita was not
furnished with adequate information on which to base the conclusion that Grant is psychologically
incapacitated.

Solidum V Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solidum V Republic

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Solidum V Republic

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hannamer and Grant were classmates that turned sweethearts.

After graduation, Hannamer started

Issue: whether or not Grant is psychologically incapacitated

These allegations do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity. Irreconcilable differences,

You might also like