519 Phil.

337

THIRD DIVISION
[ G.R. NO. 155800, March 10, 2006 ]
LEONILO ANTONIO PETITIONER, VS. MARIE IVONNE F. REYES,
RESPONDENT

DECISION

TINGA, J.:

Statistics never lie, but lovers often do, quipped a sage. This sad truth has unsettled many
a love transformed into matrimony. Any sort of deception between spouses, no matter the
gravity, is always disquieting. Deceit to the depth and breadth unveiled in the following
pages, dark and irrational as in the modern noir tale, dims any trace of certitude on the
guilty spouse's capability to fulfill the marital obligations even more.

The Petition for Review on Certiorari assails the Decision[1] and Resolution[2] of the Court

of Appeals dated 29 November 2001 and 24 October 2002. The Court of Appeals had
reversed the judgment[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati declaring the
marriage of Leonilo N. Antonio (petitioner) and Marie Ivonne F. Reyes (respondent), null
and void. After careful consideration, we reverse and affirm instead the trial court.

Antecedent Facts

Petitioner and respondent met in August 1989 when petitioner was 26 years old and
respondent was 36 years of age. Barely a year after their 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 1990.[6] Out of their union, a child was born on 19 April 1991, who sadly died
five (5) months later.

On 8 March 1993,[7] petitioner filed a petition to have his marriage to respondent declared

null and void. He anchored his petition for nullity on Article 36 of the Family Code
alleging that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential
obligations of marriage. He asserted that respondent's incapacity existed at the time their
marriage was celebrated and still subsists up to the present.[8]

As manifestations of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity, petitioner claimed

that respondent persistently lied about herself, the people around her, her occupation,
income, educational attainment and other events or things, [9] to wit:

(1) She concealed the fact that she previously gave birth to an illegitimate son, [10] and
instead introduced the boy to petitioner as the adopted child of her family. She only
confessed the truth about the boy's parentage when petitioner learned about it from other
sources after their marriage.[11]

(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]

(4) She claimed to be a singer or a free-lance voice talent affiliated with Blackgold
Recording Company (Blackgold); yet, not a single member of her family ever witnessed
her alleged singing activities with the group. In the same vein, she postulated that a
luncheon show was held at the Philippine Village Hotel in her honor and even presented
an invitation to that effect[14] but petitioner discovered per certification by the Director of
Sales of said hotel that no such occasion had taken place.[15]

(5) She invented friends named Babes Santos and Via Marquez, and under those names,
sent lengthy letters to petitioner claiming to be from Blackgold and touting her as the
"number one moneymaker" in the commercial industry worth P2 million.[16] Petitioner
later found out that 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 imagination when he discovered they
were not known in or connected with Blackgold.[18]

(6) She represented herself as a person of greater means, thus, she altered her payslip to
make it appear that she earned a higher income. She bought a sala set from a public
market but told petitioner that she acquired it from a famous furniture dealer.[19] She spent
lavishly on unnecessary items and ended up borrowing money from other people on 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]

In support of his petition, petitioner presented Dr. Dante Herrera Abcede (Dr. Abcede), a
psychiatrist, and Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez (Dr. Lopez), a clinical psychologist, who stated,
based on the tests they conducted, that petitioner was essentially a normal, introspective,
shy and conservative type of person. On the other hand, they observed that respondent's
persistent and constant lying to petitioner was abnormal or pathological. It undermined
the basic relationship that should be based on love, trust and respect. [22] They further
asserted that respondent's extreme jealousy was also pathological. It reached the point of
paranoia since there was no actual basis for her to suspect that petitioner was having an
affair with another woman. They concluded based on the foregoing that respondent was
psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations.[23]

In opposing the petition, respondent claimed that she performed her marital obligations
by attending to all the needs of her husband. She asserted that there was no truth to the
allegation that she fabricated stories, told lies and invented personalities. [24] She presented
her version, thus:

(1) She concealed her child by another man from petitioner because she was afraid of
losing her husband.[25]

(2) She told petitioner about David's attempt to rape and kill her because she surmised
such intent from David's act of touching her back and ogling her from head to foot. [26]

(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 producer of
Channel 9 and she had done three (3) commercials with McCann Erickson for the
advertisement of Coca-cola, Johnson & 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 claimed that
a luncheon show was indeed held in her honor at the Philippine Village Hotel on 8
December 1979.[28]

(5) She vowed that the letters sent to petitioner were not written by her and the writers
thereof were not fictitious. Bea Marquez Recto of the Recto political clan was a resident
of the United States while Babes Santos was employed with Saniwares. [29]

(6) She admitted that she called up an officemate of her husband but 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 husband's whereabouts.[30]

(7) She belied the allegation that she spent lavishly as she supported almost ten people
from her monthly budget of P7,000.00.[31]

In fine, respondent argued that apart from her non-disclosure of a child prior to their
marriage, the other lies attributed to her by petitioner were mostly hearsay and
unconvincing. Her stance was that the totality of the evidence presented is not sufficient
for a finding of psychological incapacity on her part.[32]

In addition, respondent presented Dr. Antonio Efren Reyes (Dr. Reyes), a psychiatrist, to
refute the allegations anent her psychological condition. Dr. Reyes testified that the series
of tests conducted by his assistant,[33] together with the screening procedures and the
Comprehensive Psycho-Pathological Rating Scale (CPRS) he himself conducted, led him
to conclude that respondent was not psychologically incapacitated to perform the
essential marital obligations. He postulated that regressive behavior, gross neuroticism,
psychotic tendencies, and poor control of impulses, which are signs that might point to
the presence of disabling trends, were not elicited from respondent.[34]

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 interpreted respondent's
psychological evaluation, and (ii) he made use of only one instrument called CPRS which
was not reliable because a good liar can fake the results of such test.[35]

After trial, the lower court gave credence to petitioner's evidence and held that
respondent's propensity to lying about almost anything-her occupation, state of health,
singing abilities and her income, among others-had been duly established. According to
the trial court, respondent's fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and
personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. This made her
psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and
significance to her marriage.[36] The trial court thus declared the marriage between
petitioner and respondent null and void.

Shortly before the trial court rendered its decision, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Manila annulled the Catholic marriage of the parties, on the ground of
lack of due discretion on the part of the parties.[37] During the pendency of the appeal
before the Court of Appeals, the Metropolitan Tribunal's ruling was affirmed with
modification by both the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, which held instead
that only respondent was impaired by a lack of due discretion.[38] Subsequently, the
decision of the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal was upheld by the Roman Rota
of the Vatican.[39]

Petitioner duly alerted the Court of Appeals of these rulings by the Catholic tribunals.
Still, the appellate court reversed the RTC's judgment. While conceding that respondent
may not have been completely honest with petitioner, the Court of Appeals nevertheless
held that the totality of the evidence presented was insufficient to establish respondent's
psychological incapacity. It declared that the requirements in the case of Republic v.
Court of Appeals[40] governing the application and interpretation of psychological
incapacity had not been satisfied.
Taking exception to the appellate court's pronouncement, petitioner elevated the case to
this Court. He contends herein that the evidence conclusively establish respondent's
psychological incapacity.

In considering the merit of this petition, the Court is heavily influenced by the credence
accorded by the RTC to the factual allegations of petitioner.[41] It is a settled principle of
civil procedure that the conclusions of the trial court regarding the credibility of
witnesses are entitled to great respect from the appellate courts because the trial court had
an opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses while giving testimony which may
indicate their candor or lack thereof.[42] The Court is likewise guided by the fact that the
Court of Appeals did not dispute the veracity of the evidence presented by petitioner.
Instead, the appellate court concluded that such evidence was not sufficient to establish
the psychological incapacity of respondent.[43]

Thus, the Court is impelled to accept the factual version of petitioner as the operative
facts. Still, the crucial question remains as to whether the state of facts as presented by
petitioner sufficiently meets the standards set for the declaration of nullity of a marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code. These standards were definitively laid down in the
Court's 1997 ruling in Republic v. Court of Appeals[44] (also known as the Molina case[45]),
and indeed the Court of Appeals cited the Molina guidelines in reversing the RTC in the
case at bar.[46] Since Molina was decided in 1997, the Supreme Court has yet to squarely
affirm the declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. [47] In
fact, even before Molina was handed down, there was only one case, Chi Ming Tsoi v.
Court of Appeals,[48] wherein the Court definitively concluded that a spouse was
psychologically incapacitated under Article 36.

This state of jurisprudential affairs may have led to the misperception that the remedy
afforded by Article 36 of the Family Code is hollow, insofar as the Supreme Court is
concerned.[49] Yet what Molina and the succeeding cases did ordain was a set of
guidelines which, while undoubtedly onerous on the petitioner seeking the declaration of
nullity, still leave 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 raised the bar for
its allowance.

Legal Guides to Understanding Article 36

Article 36 of the Family Code states that "[a] marriage contracted by any party who, at
the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the
essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity
becomes manifest only after its solemnization."[50] The concept of psychological
incapacity as a ground for nullity of marriage is novel in our body of laws, although
mental incapacity has long been recognized as a ground for the dissolution of a marriage.
The Spanish Civil Code of 1889 prohibited from contracting marriage persons "who are
not in the full enjoyment of their reason at the time of contracting marriage."[51] Marriages
with such persons were ordained as void,[52] in the same class as marriages with underage
parties and persons already married, among others. A party's mental capacity was not a
ground for divorce under the Divorce Law of 1917,[53] but a marriage where "either party
was of unsound mind" at the time of its celebration was cited as an "annullable marriage"
under the Marriage Law of 1929.[54] Divorce on the ground of a spouse's incurable
insanity was permitted under the divorce law enacted during the Japanese occupation.
[55] 
Upon the enactment of the Civil Code in 1950, a marriage contracted by a party of
"unsound mind" was classified under Article 85 of the Civil Code as a voidable marriage.
[56]
 The mental capacity, or lack thereof, of the marrying spouse was not among the
grounds for declaring a marriage void ab initio.[57] Similarly, among the marriages
classified as voidable under Article 45 (2) of the Family Code is one contracted by a
party of unsound mind.[58]

Such cause for the annulment of marriage is recognized as a vice of consent, just like
insanity impinges on consent freely given which is one of the essential requisites of a
contract.[59] The initial common consensus on psychological incapacity under Article 36
of the Family Code was that it did not constitute a specie of vice of consent. Justices
Sempio-Diy and Caguioa, both members of the Family Code revision committee that
drafted the Code, have opined that psychological incapacity is not a vice of consent, and
conceded that the spouse may have given free and voluntary consent to a marriage but
was nonetheless incapable of fulfilling such rights and obligations.[60] Dr. Tolentino
likewise stated in the 1990 edition of his commentaries on the Family Code that this
"psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations does not affect
the consent to the marriage."[61]

There were initial criticisms of this original understanding of Article 36 as phrased by the
Family Code committee. Tolentino opined that "psychologically incapacity to comply
would not be juridically different from physical incapacity of consummating the
marriage, which makes the marriage only voidable under Article 45 (5) of the Civil Code
x x x [and thus] should have been a cause for annulment of the marriage only."[62] At the
same time, Tolentino noted "[it] would be different if it were psychological incapacity to
understand the essential marital obligations, because then this would amount to lack of
consent to the marriage."[63] These concerns though were answered, beginning
with Santos v. Court of Appeals,[64] wherein the Court, through Justice Vitug,
acknowledged that "psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental (not
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."[65]

The notion that psychological incapacity pertains to the inability to understand the
obligations of marriage, as opposed to a mere inability to comply with them, was further
affirmed in the Molina[66] case. Therein, the Court, through then Justice (now Chief
Justice) Panganiban observed that "[t]he evidence [to establish psychological incapacity]
must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to
such extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or
knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereto."[67] Jurisprudence since
then has recognized that psychological incapacity "is a malady so grave and permanent as
to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one
is about to assume." [68]

It might seem that this present understanding of psychological incapacity deviates from
the literal wording of Article 36, with its central phase reading "psychologically
incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage."[69] At the
same time, it has been consistently recognized by this Court that the intent of the Family
Code committee was to design the law as to allow some resiliency in its application, by
avoiding specific examples that would limit the applicability of the provision under the
principle of ejusdem generis. Rather, the preference of the revision committee was for
"the judge to interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, in
the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions
of church tribunals which, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given
persuasive effect since the provision was taken from Canon Law."[70]

We likewise observed in Republic v. Dagdag:[71]

Whether or not psychological incapacity exists in a given case calling for annulment of a
marriage, depends crucially, more than in any field of the law, on the facts of the case.
Each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or
generalizations but according to its own facts. In regard to psychological incapacity as a
ground for annulment of marriage, it is trite to say that no case is on "all fours" with
another case. The trial judge must take pains in examining the factual milieu and the
appellate court must, as much as possible, avoid substituting its own judgment for that of
the trial court.[72]
The Court thus acknowledges that the definition of psychological incapacity, as intended
by the revision committee, was not cast in intractable specifics. Judicial understanding of
psychological incapacity may be informed by evolving standards, taking into account the
particulars of each case, current trends in psychological and even canonical thought, and
experience. It is under the auspices of the deliberate ambiguity of the framers that the
Court has developed the Molina rules, which have been consistently applied since
1997. Molina has proven indubitably useful in providing a unitary framework that guides
courts in adjudicating petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. At the same
time, the Molina guidelines are not set in stone, the clear legislative intent mandating a
case-to-case perception of each situation, and Molina itself arising from this evolutionary
understanding of Article 36. There is no cause to disavow Molina at present, and indeed
the disposition of this case shall rely primarily on that precedent. There is need though to
emphasize other perspectives as well which should govern the disposition of petitions for
declaration of nullity under Article 36.

Of particular notice has been the citation of the Court, first in Santos then in Molina, of
the considered opinion of canon law experts in the interpretation of psychological
incapacity. This is but unavoidable, considering that the Family Code committee had
bluntly acknowledged that the concept of psychological incapacity was derived from
canon law,[73] and as one member admitted, enacted as a solution to the problem of
marriages already annulled by the Catholic Church but still existent under civil law. [74] It
would be disingenuous to disregard the influence of Catholic Church doctrine in the
formulation and subsequent understanding of Article 36, and the Court has expressly
acknowledged that interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
of the local Church, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by
our courts.[75] Still, it must be emphasized that the Catholic Church is hardly the sole
source of influence in the interpretation of Article 36. Even though the concept may have
been derived from canon law, its incorporation into the Family Code and subsequent
judicial interpretation occurred in wholly secular progression. Indeed, while Church
thought on psychological incapacity is merely persuasive on the trial courts, judicial
decisions of this Court interpreting psychological incapacity are binding on lower courts.
[76]

Now is also opportune time to comment on another common legal guide utilized in the
adjudication of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. All too frequently,
this Court and lower courts, in denying petitions of the kind, have favorably cited
Sections 1 and 2, Article XV of the Constitution, which respectively state that "[t]he State
recognizes the Filipino family as the foundation of the nation. Accordingly, it shall
strengthen its solidarity and actively promote its total developmen[t]," and that
"[m]arriage, as an inviolable social institution, is the foundation of the family and shall be
protected by the State." These provisions highlight the importance of the family and the
constitutional protection accorded to the institution of marriage.

But the Constitution itself does not establish the parameters of state protection to
marriage as a social institution and the foundation of the 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, based on whatever socio-political influences it deems proper, and
subject of course to the qualification that such legislative enactment itself adheres to the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This being the case, it also falls on the legislature to
put into operation the constitutional provisions that protect marriage and the family. This
has been accomplished at present through the enactment of the Family Code, which
defines marriage and the family, spells out the corresponding legal effects, imposes the
limitations that affect married and family life, as well as prescribes the grounds for
declaration of nullity and those for legal separation. While it may appear that the judicial
denial of a petition for declaration of nullity is reflective of the constitutional mandate to
protect marriage, such action in fact merely enforces a statutory definition of marriage,
not a constitutionally ordained decree of what marriage is. Indeed, if circumstances
warrant, Sections 1 and 2 of Article XV need not be the only constitutional
considerations to be taken into account in resolving a petition for declaration of nullity.

Indeed, Article 36 of the Family Code, in classifying marriages contracted by a

psychologically incapacitated person as a nullity, should be deemed as an implement of
this constitutional protection of marriage. Given the avowed State interest in promoting
marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the
nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriages ill-
equipped to promote family life. Void ab initio marriages under Article 36 do not further
the initiatives of the State concerning marriage and family, as they promote wedlock
among persons who, for reasons independent of their will, are not capacitated to
understand or comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

These are the legal premises that inform us as we decide the present petition.

Molina Guidelines As Applied in This Case

As stated earlier, Molina established the guidelines presently recognized in the judicial

disposition of petitions for nullity under Article 36. The Court has consistently
applied Molina since its promulgation in 1997, and the guidelines therein operate as the
general rules. They warrant citation in full:
1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any
doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and
against its dissolution and nullity. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and
our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution
devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it "as the foundation of the nation." It
decrees marriage as legally "inviolable," thereby protecting it from dissolution at the
whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be "protected'"by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and
emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically or clinically
identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly
explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must
be psychological—not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be
physical. The evidence must convince the court that the parties, or one of them, was
mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the
obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the
application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such
root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully
explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.

3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the
marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties
exchanged their "I do's." The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such
time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or

incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other
spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such
incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to
those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job.
Hence, a pediatrician may be effective in diagnosing illnesses of children and prescribing
medicine to cure them but not be psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and raise
his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume
the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, "mild characteriological peculiarities, mood
changes, occasional emotional outbursts" cannot be accepted as root causes. The illness
must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty,
much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively
incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the
obligations essential to marriage.

6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the

Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the
same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital
obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the
text of the decision.

7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic

Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts. It is clear that Article 36 was taken by the Family Code Revision
Committee from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which became effective in
1983 and which provides:

"The following are incapable of contracting marriage: Those who are unable to assume
the essential obligations of marriage due to causes of psychological nature."

Since the purpose of including such provision in our Family Code is to harmonize our
civil laws with the religious faith of our people, it stands to reason that to achieve such
harmonization, great persuasive weight should be given to decisions of such appellate
tribunal. Ideally—subject to our law on evidence—what is decreed as canonically invalid
should also be decreed civilly void.[77]
Molina had provided for an additional requirement that the Solicitor General issue a
certification stating his reasons for his agreement or opposition to the petition.[78] This
requirement however was dispensed with following the implementation of A.M. No. 02-
11-10-SC, or the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages.[79] Still, Article 48 of the Family Code mandates that
the appearance of the prosecuting attorney or fiscal assigned be on 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, collusion is not an issue in this case, considering the
consistent vigorous opposition of respondent to the petition for declaration of nullity. In
any event, the fiscal's participation in the hearings before the trial court is extant from the
records of this case.

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 the veracity of these facts. As such, it must be
considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects as to her
character and personality. The question remains whether her pattern of fabrication
sufficiently establishes her psychological incapacity, consistent with Article 36 and
generally, the Molina guidelines.

We find that the present case sufficiently satisfies the guidelines in Molina.

First. Petitioner had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the psychological

incapacity of his spouse. Apart from his own testimony, he presented witnesses who
corroborated his allegations on his wife's behavior, and certifications from Blackgold
Records and the Philippine Village Hotel Pavillon which disputed respondent's claims
pertinent to her alleged singing career. He also presented two (2) expert witnesses from
the field of psychology who testified that the aberrant behavior of respondent was
tantamount to psychological incapacity. In any event, both courts below considered
petitioner's evidence as credible enough. Even the appellate court acknowledged that
respondent was not totally honest with petitioner.[80]

As in all civil matters, the petitioner in an action for declaration of nullity under Article
36 must be able to establish the cause of action with a preponderance of evidence.
However, since the action cannot be considered as a non-public matter between private
parties, but is impressed with State interest, the Family Code likewise requires the
participation of the State, through the prosecuting attorney, fiscal, or Solicitor General, to
take steps to prevent collusion between the parties and to take care that evidence is not
fabricated or suppressed. Thus, even if the petitioner is able establish the psychological
incapacity of respondent with preponderant evidence, any finding of collusion among the
parties would necessarily negate such proofs.

Second. The root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity has been medically or
clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly
explained in the trial court's decision. The initiatory complaint alleged that respondent,
from the start, had exhibited unusual and abnormal behavior "of peren[n]ially telling lies,
fabricating ridiculous stories, and inventing personalities and situations," of writing
letters to petitioner using fictitious names, and of lying about her actual occupation,
income, educational attainment, and family background, among others.[81]

These allegations, initially characterized in generalities, were further linked to medical or

clinical causes by expert witnesses from the field of psychology. Petitioner presented two
(2) such witnesses in particular. Dr. Abcede, a psychiatrist who had headed the
department of psychiatry of at least two (2) major hospitals,[82] testified as follows:
WITNESS:
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 standards. There are a
couple of things that seems (sic) to be repeated over and over again in the affidavit.
One of which is the persistent, constant and repeated lying of the "respondent"; which,
I think, based on assessment of normal behavior of an individual, is abnormal or
pathological. x x x
ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the witness)
Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that because of these actuations of the respondent
she is then incapable of performing the basic obligations of her marriage?
A- Well, persistent lying violates the respect that one owes towards another. The lack of
concern, the lack of love towards the person, and it is also something that endangers
human relationship. You see, relationship is based on communication between
individuals and what we generally communicate are our thoughts and feelings. But
then when one talks and expresse[s] their feelings, [you] are expected to tell the truth.
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 basic relationship that should
be based on love, trust and respect.
Q- Would you say then, Mr. witness, that due to the behavior of the respondent in
constantly lying and fabricating stories, she is then incapable of performing the basic
obligations of the marriage?
xxx
ATTY. RAZ: (Back to the witness)
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 petitioner's
officemates and ask him (sic) on the activities of 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, what can you say about this, Mr. witness?
A- If an individual is jealous enough to the point that he is paranoid, which means that
 there is no actual basis on her suspect (sic) that her husband is having an affair with a
woman, if carried on to the extreme, then that is pathological. That is not abnormal.
We all feel jealous, in the same way as we also lie every now and then; but everything
that is carried out in extreme is abnormal or pathological. If there is no basis in 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 different women, then
that is pathological and we call that paranoid jealousy.
Q- Now, if a person is in paranoid jealousy, would she be considered psychologically
incapacitated to perform the basic obligations of the marriage
A- Yes, Ma'am.[83]
The other witness, Dr. Lopez, was presented to establish not only the psychological
incapacity of respondent, but also the psychological capacity of petitioner. He concluded
that respondent "is [a] pathological liar, that [she continues] to lie [and] she loves to
fabricate about herself."[84]

These two witnesses based their conclusions of psychological incapacity on the case
record, particularly the trial transcripts of respondent's testimony, as well as the
supporting affidavits of petitioner. While these witnesses did not personally examine
respondent, the Court had already held in Marcos v. Marcos[85] that personal examination
of the subject by the physician is not required for the spouse to be declared
psychologically incapacitated.[86] We deem the methodology utilized by petitioner's
witnesses as sufficient basis for their medical conclusions. Admittedly, Drs. Abcede and
Lopez's common conclusion of respondent's psychological incapacity hinged heavily on
their own acceptance of petitioner's version as the true set of facts. However, since the
trial court itself accepted the veracity of petitioner's factual premises, there is no cause to
dispute the conclusion of psychological incapacity drawn therefrom by petitioner's expert
witnesses.

Also, with the totality of the evidence presented as basis, the trial court explicated its
finding of psychological incapacity in its decision in this wise:
To the mind of the Court, all of the above are indications that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential obligations of marriage. It has been
shown clearly from her actuations that respondent has that propensity for telling lies
about almost anything, be it her occupation, her state of health, her singing abilities, her
income, etc. She has this fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and personalities.
She practically lived in a world of make believe making her therefore not in a position to
give meaning and significance to her marriage to petitioner. In persistently and constantly
lying to petitioner, respondent undermined the basic tenets of relationship between
spouses that is based on love, trust and respect. As concluded by the psychiatrist
presented by petitioner, such repeated lying is abnormal and pathological and amounts to
psychological incapacity.[87]
Third. Respondent's psychological incapacity was established to have 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 child's real parentage as she only confessed when
the latter had found out the truth after their marriage.

Fourth. The gravity of respondent's psychological incapacity is sufficient to prove her

disability to assume the essential obligations of marriage. It is immediately discernible
that the parties had shared only a little over a year of cohabitation before the exasperated
petitioner left his wife. Whatever such circumstance speaks of the degree of tolerance of
petitioner, it likewise supports the belief that respondent's psychological incapacity, as
borne by the record, was so grave in extent that any prolonged marital life was dubitable.

It should be noted that the lies attributed to respondent were not adopted as false
pretenses in order to induce petitioner into marriage. More disturbingly, they indicate a
failure on the part of respondent to distinguish truth from fiction, or at least abide by the
truth. Petitioner's witnesses and the trial court were emphatic on respondent's inveterate
proclivity to telling lies and the pathologic nature of her mistruths, which according to
them, were revelatory of respondent's inability to understand and perform the essential
obligations of marriage. Indeed, a person unable to distinguish between fantasy and
reality would similarly be unable to comprehend the legal nature of the marital bond,
much less its psychic meaning, and the corresponding obligations attached to marriage,
including parenting. One unable to adhere to reality cannot be expected to adhere as well
to any legal or emotional commitments.

The Court of Appeals somehow concluded that since respondent 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 marriage hardly banishes nay extenuates her lack of capacity
to fulfill the essential marital obligations. Respondent's ability to even comprehend what
the essential marital obligations are is impaired at best. Considering that the evidence
convincingly disputes respondent's ability to adhere to the truth, her avowals as to her
commitment to the marriage cannot be accorded much credence.

At this point, it is worth considering Article 45(3) of the Family Code which 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 misrepresentation or deceit as to character, health, rank,
fortune or chastity shall constitute such fraud as will give grounds for action for the
annulment of marriage." It would be improper to draw linkages between
misrepresentations made by respondent and the misrepresentations 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 of the lying spouse. In this case, the
misrepresentations of respondent point to her own inadequacy to cope with her marital
obligations, kindred to psychological incapacity under Article 36.
Fifth. Respondent is evidently unable to comply with the essential marital obligations as
embraced by Articles 68 to 71 of the Family Code. Article 68, in particular, enjoins the
spouses to live together, observe mutual 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 would be able to commit to the basic tenets of relationship between
spouses based on love, trust and respect.

Sixth. The Court of Appeals clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact
that the marriage of the parties was annulled by the Catholic Church. The appellate court
apparently deemed this detail totally inconsequential as no reference was made to it
anywhere in the assailed decision despite petitioner's efforts to bring the matter to its
attention.[88] Such deliberate ignorance is in contravention of Molina, which held that
interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic
Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect
by our courts.

As noted earlier, the Metropolitan Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Manila decreed the
invalidity of the marriage in question in a Conclusion[89] dated 30 March 1995, citing the
"lack of due discretion" on the part of respondent.[90] Such decree of nullity was affirmed
by both the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal,[91] and the Roman Rota of the
Vatican.[92] In fact, respondent's psychological incapacity was considered so grave that a
restrictive clause[93] was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibiting respondent from
contracting another marriage without the Tribunal's consent.

In its Decision dated 4 June 1995, the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal
pronounced:
The JURISRPRUDENCE in the Case maintains that matrimonial consent is considered
ontologically defective and wherefore judicially ineffective when elicited by a Part
Contractant in possession and employ of a discretionary judgment faculty with a
perceptive vigor markedly inadequate for the practical understanding of the conjugal
Covenant or serious impaired from the correct appreciation of the integral significance
and implications of the marriage vows.

The FACTS in the Case sufficiently prove with the certitude required by law that based
on the depositions of the Partes in Causa and premised on the testimonies of the Common
and Expert Witnesse[s], the Respondent made the marriage option in tenure of
adverse personality constracts that were markedly antithetical to the substantive
content and implications of the Marriage Covenant, and that seriously undermined
the integrality of her matrimonial consent in terms of its deliberative component. In
other words, afflicted with a discretionary faculty impaired in its practico-concrete
judgment formation on account of an adverse action and reaction pattern, the
Respondent was impaired from eliciting a judicially binding matrimonial
consent. There is no sufficient evidence in the Case however to prove as well the fact of
grave lack of due discretion on the part of the Petitioner.[94]
Evidently, the conclusion of psychological incapacity was arrived at not only by the trial
court, but also by canonical bodies. Yet, we must clarify 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 the trial court, of the veracity of petitioner's allegations. Had the
trial court instead appreciated respondent's version as correct, and the appellate court
affirmed such conclusion, the rulings of the Catholic Church on this 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, that are accorded significant recognition by this
Court.

Seventh. The final point of contention is the requirement in Molina that such

psychological incapacity be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.
It was on this score that the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial court, the
appellate court noting that it did not appear certain that respondent's condition was
incurable and that Dr. Abcede did not testify to such effect.[95]

Petitioner points out that one month after he and his wife initially separated, he returned
to her, desiring to make their marriage work. However, respondent's aberrant behavior
remained unchanged, as she continued to lie, fabricate stories, and maintained her
excessive jealousy. From this fact, he draws the conclusion that respondent's condition is
incurable.

From the totality of the evidence, can it be definitively concluded that respondent's
condition is incurable? It would seem, at least, that respondent's psychosis is quite grave,
and a cure thereof a remarkable feat. Certainly, it would have been easier had petitioner's
expert witnesses characterized respondent's condition as incurable. Instead, they
remained silent on whether the psychological incapacity was curable or incurable.

But on careful examination, there was good reason for the experts' taciturnity on this
point.

The petitioner's expert witnesses testified in 1994 and 1995, and the trial court rendered
its decision on 10 August 1995. These events transpired well before Molina was
promulgated in 1997 and made explicit the requirement that the psychological incapacity
must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such requirement
was not expressly stated in Article 36 or any other provision of the Family Code.

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 Code committee,[96] then the
opinion of canonical scholars,[97] before arriving at its formulation of the doctrinal
definition of psychological incapacity.[98] Santos did refer to Justice Caguioa's opinion
expressed during the deliberations that "psychological incapacity is incurable,"[99] and the
view of a former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Marriage Tribunal of the
Archdiocese of Manila that psychological incapacity must be characterized "by (a)
gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability."[100] However, in formulating the
doctrinal rule on psychological incapacity, the Court in Santos omitted any reference to
incurability as a characteristic of psychological incapacity.[101]

This disquisition is material as Santos was decided months before the trial court came out
with its own ruling that remained silent on whether respondent's psychological incapacity
was incurable. Certainly, Santos did not clearly mandate that the incurability of the
psychological incapacity be established in an action for declaration of nullity. At least,
there was no jurisprudential clarity at the time of the trial of this case and the subsequent
promulgation of the trial court's decision that required a medical finding of incurability.
Such requisite arose only with Molina in 1997, at a time when this case was on appellate
review, or after the reception of evidence.

We are aware that in Pesca v. Pesca,[102] the Court countered an argument

that Molina and Santos should not apply retroactively

with the observation that the interpretation or construction placed by the courts of a law
constitutes a part of that law as of the date the statute in enacted. [103] Yet we approach this
present case from utterly practical considerations. The requirement that psychological
incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable is one that
necessarily cannot be divined without expert opinion. Clearly in this case, there was no
categorical averment from the expert witnesses that respondent's psychological incapacity
was curable or incurable simply because there was no legal necessity yet to elicit such a
declaration and the appropriate question was not accordingly propounded to him. If we
apply Pesca without deep reflection, there would be undue prejudice to those cases tried
before Molina or Santos, especially those presently on appellate review, where
presumably the respective petitioners and their expert witnesses would not have seen the
need to adduce a diagnosis of incurability. It may hold in those cases, as in this case, that
the psychological incapacity of a spouse is actually incurable, even if not pronounced as
such at the trial court level.

We stated earlier that Molina is not set in stone, and that the interpretation of Article 36
relies heavily on a case-to-case perception. It would be insensate to reason to mandate in
this case an expert medical or clinical diagnosis of incurability, since the parties would
have had no impelling cause to present evidence to that effect at the time this case was
tried by the RTC more than ten (10) years ago. From the totality of the evidence, we are
sufficiently convinced that the incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity has
been established by the petitioner. Any lingering doubts are further dispelled by the fact
that the Catholic Church tribunals, which indubitably consider incurability as an integral
requisite of psychological incapacity, were sufficiently convinced that respondent was so
incapacitated to contract marriage to the degree that annulment was warranted.

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.

There is little relish in deciding this present petition, pronouncing as it 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 nullity. In fact, the appellate court placed undue emphasis on
respondent's avowed commitment to remain in the marriage. Yet the Court decides these
cases on legal reasons and not vapid sentimentality. Marriage, in legal contemplation, is
more than the legitimatization of a desire of people in love to live together.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the RTC dated 10 August
1995, declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under
Article 36 of the Family Code, is REINSTATED. No costs.

SO ORDERED.