FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 210780. January 25, 2023.]

EDWARD N. RIVO , petitioner, vs. DOLORES S. RIVO ,

respondent.

DECISION

HERNANDO, J : p

Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 challenging the

September 9, 2013 Decision 2 and the January 9, 2014 Resolution 3 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 94751. The CA granted the appeal
filed by respondent and set aside the October 30, 2009 Decision 4 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 199 in Civil Case No. 05-
0086, granting petitioner's Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage
under Article 36 of the Family Code. HTcADC

The Antecedent Facts

Edward N. Rivo (petitioner) and Dolores S. Rivo (respondent) were
officemates when they started dating in 1978 and got married on January
19, 1979 in a civil ceremony. On March 14, 1979, they celebrated their
church wedding. Prior to their marriage, respondent begot a child with her
former lover. Petitioner accepted respondent's son and treated him as his
own son. 5 On the other hand, petitioner and respondent have three
children. 6
On April 26, 2005, petitioner filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of
Marriage 7 against respondent. Petitioner alleged that respondent was
psychologically incapable of assuming the essential obligations of marriage,
and the incapacity existed at the time of the celebration of the marriage
although he discovered it only after their marriage. 8
During their marriage, petitioner observed that respondent gave
priority to her work and devoted little time with petitioner and their children.
Even on Sundays, respondent would tend to her family's grocery store rather
than spend time with her family. Respondent was always too tired and
unconcerned about her physical appearance. Most of the time, she went to
bed without cleaning herself thus, petitioner did not have the urge to be
intimate with her. 9
In addition, petitioner noticed that respondent was unfair to her
children. She showed more care and love towards Eduardo and Eugene while
she often mistreated Jor-el. This prompted petitioner to take custody of Jor-el
after they separated. 10
However, petitioner admitted that he was partly responsible for the
failure of their marriage. He revealed that he had two extra-marital affairs
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 and even sired two children with her second mistress, Perla. In 1989,
petitioner abandoned his family and did not disclose his whereabouts for two
years. 11
On January 20, 2005, petitioner sought professional help from a clinical
psychologist, Dr. Natividad Dayan (Dr. Dayan). After the interview conducted
by Dr. Dayan upon petitioner, the physician concluded that petitioner is
suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. On the other hand, Dr.
Dayan opined that respondent is encumbered with a Compulsive Personality
Disorder based on the collated information provided by petitioner. Moreover,
their marriage was marked with a Partner Relational Problem. Dr. Dayan
remarked that the parties would continue to experience misery and
psychological distress if they remain married to each other. 12
For her part, respondent belied petitioner's allegation that she was a
neglectful wife to him and mother to her children. On the contrary, she was a
model wife. Respondent claimed that the grocery store adverted to by
petitioner belongs to petitioner and respondent because the latter took over
it from her family. Necessarily, she had to manage it. However, it is not true
that she was in the store even during Sundays because it was her mother
who tended the store on Sundays so she could spend the day with petitioner
and her children. 13 She added that petitioner benefited largely from the
operation of the grocery business because respondent bought a brand new
car for him out of the profit gained from the business.
Respondent also denied petitioner's accusation that she was not very
particular with her hygiene which caused their sexual life to suffer.
Contrariwise, respondent averred that they had a normal sexual life until
petitioner started womanizing. In fact, she filed a concubinage case against
petitioner which is pending before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon
City as of the time of filing of the petition for declaration of nullity of their
marriage. 14
Moreover, while respondent admitted that she had the tendency to
take her anger towards Jor-el, who is the look-a-like of petitioner, this was,
however, the consequence of her emotional distress arising from petitioner's
infidelity. Aware that she was being unfair to Jor-el, respondent asked her
sister-in-law to take temporary custody of Jor-el. However, unknown to
respondent, petitioner took Jor-el home to live with his mistress. 15
Respondent likewise submitted herself to a battery of psychological
tests and based on the evaluation conducted by Dr. Nimia Hermilia C. De
Guzman (Dr. De Guzman), it was found that respondent is psychologically
capacitated to understand and comply with her martial obligations. 16
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In a Decision dated October 30, 2009, the RTC granted the petition and
declared void ab initio the marriage between petitioner and respondent. The
trial court found petitioner psychologically unfit to discharge his
responsibilities as a husband. Petitioner's inability to understand the needs
of her wife for financial support, his constant complaining of respondent's
hygiene despite knowing the nature of their business, and his act of
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 encouraging Jor-el to harbor antagonistic attitude against his own mother
knowing that he has contributed to the pains suffered by respondent due to
his infidelity, are indicative of inconsiderate, selfish and narcissistic thought,
and a distorted understanding of his essential obligations as a father and
husband. 17
Finding petitioner's psychological incapacity to be serious, long
standing and incurable, and given the gravity of the parties' failed
relationship, the trial court declared their marriage void ab initio. The
decretal portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby
rendered as follows:
(1) Declaring the marriage contracted by the plaintiff
Edward Rivo and defendant Dolores Sy-Rivo solemnized on
January 19, 1979 in civil rites in the City of Manila and all its effects
under the law NULL AND VOID AB INITIO conformably with Article
36 of the Family Code as amended;
(2) Dissolving the regime of conjugal partnership of gains
between the parties;
(3) Pursuant to the provisions of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule
on Declaration [of] Absolute Nullity of Marriages and Annulment of
Voidable Marriages):
(a) Directing the Branch Clerk of Court to enter this judgment,
upon its finality, in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to
issue an Entry of Judgment in accordance thereto;
(b) Directing the Civil Registrars of Manila and Las Piñas City
to cause the registration of the entry of judgment in their
respective book of marriages.
Upon compliance, a Decree of Nullity of Marriage shall be
issued.
xxx xxx xxx
SO ORDERED. 18 (Emphasis in the original)
Not in conformity, respondent appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed September 9, 2013 Decision, the CA reversed and set
aside the RTC's ruling. The appellate court did not find the totality of
evidence presented before the trial court sufficient to support a finding that
petitioner is psychologically unfit to fulfill his marital obligations. It observed
that the primary reason for the grant of the petition was petitioner's
infidelity. However, sexual infidelity and abandonment of conjugal dwelling
do not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity but are simply
grounds for legal separation.
The CA also noted that petitioner became unfaithful because of his
dissatisfaction with his marriage rather than a psychological disorder rooted
in his personality. In fact, prior to meeting his present partner, petitioner
performed his marital obligations and was a responsible parent to their
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 children.
In the same vein, the appellate court found petitioner's allegation of
respondent's psychological incapacity unsubstantiated by evidence. While
respondent admitted that she spent most of her time tending their grocery
store, she still managed to find time for her family. She was also forced to
work hard to ensure that they had the means to pay off their financial
obligations. The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, We
GRANT the appeal. We SET ASIDE the Decision dated October 30,
2009 and the Order dated February 5, 2010, both issued by the Las
Piñas City Regional Trial Court-Branch 199 in Civil Case No. 05-0086.
Consequently, We DISMISS plaintiff-appellee Edward N. Rivo's
petition for declaration of nullity of his marriage with defendant-
appellant Dolores S. Rivo under Article 36 of the Family Code.
SO ORDERED. 19

Petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration 20 was denied by the CA in its

assailed January 9, 2014 Resolution. 21
Issue
Did the appellate court commit reversible error when it reversed the
trial court's decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity of
petitioner's marriage with respondent?
Our Ruling
We answer in the negative.
Preliminarily, the instant petition suffers from a procedural infirmity as
it lacks the requisite Verification and Certificate of Non-Forum Shopping.
Section 4, 22 Rule 45 of the Rules of Court requires that a petition filed under
this Rule must be accompanied by a sworn certification against forum
shopping. In relation to this, Sec. 5 (d), 23 Rule 56 of the Amended Rules of
Court gives the Court the liberty to deny outright or deny due course a Rule
45 petition which failed to comply with the documents which should
accompany the petition. On this score alone, the petition must be denied
due course.
But even if technicality were set aside, just the same the petition fails.
Petitioner anchors his petition mainly on the fact that both expert
witnesses, Doctors Dayan and De Guzman, found him psychologically
incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations to respondent.
Petitioner argues that the Molina guidelines formulated in the case of
Republic v. Molina 24 have been satisfied in this case since it was established
through the testimony of expert witnesses that he is afflicted with a grave,
pre-existing, and incurable psychological incapacity.
Petitioner's argument is untenable.
In the recent case of Tan-Andal v. Andal (Tan-Andal), 25 the Court en
banc introduced a nuanced interpretation of what constitutes psychological
incapacity in order to address the rigid application of the Molina guidelines.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 The Court came up with a new set of parameters, which either retained,
abandoned, or amended for the purpose the Molina guidelines, that will aid
in the interpretation and application of Art. 36 of the Family Code, to wit:
(1) The psychological incapacity must be shown to have been
existing at the time of the celebration of marriage;
(2) Caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one
that was formed prior to their marriage;
(3) Caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause; and
(4) Proven by clear and convincing evidence. 26
In addition, the Court has categorically abandoned the second Molina
guideline and held that psychological incapacity is not a medical illness that
has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not
required. In lieu thereof, Tan-Andal required proof of the durable or enduring
aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure" which
manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the
family such that the spouse's personality structure must make it impossible
for him or her to understand and to comply with his or her essential marital
obligations. This may be proven by testimonies of ordinary witnesses, who
have been present in the life of the spouses before they contracted
marriage, on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the
supposedly incapacitated spouse.
In light of the Court's definitive declaration that psychological
incapacity need not be proven by expert opinion, We cannot sustain
petitioner's excessive reliance on the expert opinions of Doctors Dayan and
De Guzman, as conclusive proof that he is truly incognitive of the essential
covenants of marriage, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence of
its existence.
Moreover, while petitioner offered the testimony of his sister, Marlene
Rivo (Marlene), We find Marlene's testimony to be inadequate to prove the
existence of petitioner's psychological incapacity.
Tan-Andal emphasized that the psychological incapacity must be
shown to have been existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage,
and is caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one that
was formed before the parties married. 27
Here, based on the narrative of events offered by respondent and
Marlene, it is undeniable that petitioner was a faithful and loving husband to
respondent and a responsible parent to his children before he met his
present partner, Perla. Their marriage was blissful, and their family life was
peaceful and harmonious until petitioner started philandering. However, it is
noteworthy that after petitioner's first extra-marital affair, he exerted efforts
to reconcile with respondent and reunite with his family. It was only in the
second instance of infidelity where petitioner got too involved with Perla that
eventually led him to abandon their conjugal dwelling.
Thus, by petitioner's own statements and admissions in his petition and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 in his testimony in court, he has displayed full knowledge and understanding
of his obligations and has, in fact, committed positive acts towards building
and sustaining a family. This exhibits his genuine awareness of his marital
obligations, which clearly negated his claim of juridically antecedent
psychological incapacity.
Moreover, apart from the claim of Marlene that their father has a
history of extra-marital affairs to make it appear that petitioner's
psychological capacity is deeply rooted in his childhood, no other convincing
evidence was adduced to demonstrate how and to what extent their father's
philandering ways correlate to petitioner's alleged disorder, and how it
incapacitated him to understand and comply with his marital obligations. All
that Marlene claimed was that petitioner was a silent type during his
childhood days. Neither was there proof of petitioner's behavior or habits
during his adolescent years that could explain his behavior during the
marriage.
On the contrary, it was indubitably established that at the inception of
their marriage, petitioner was faithful and caring to respondent. Petitioner's
sister herself testified that petitioner's union with respondent was smooth
sailing and that it began to crumble only after they had kids, that is after 12
years of being together. 28 Thus, there was no showing that petitioner's
defects were already present at the time of celebration of their marriage.
Similarly, it was not clearly shown that petitioner's alleged disorder
developed due to his father being overly-strict and strong-willed.
Notwithstanding Marlene's claim that they grew up in a military-like setting,
it appears that this circumstance did not affect their other siblings' marriage
to their respective spouses. According to Marlene, all of her siblings, except
for petitioner, are happily married. 29
In a further attempt to establish juridical antecedence, counsel for
petitioner attributed Marlene's failure to marry to her father's militaristic
approach in disciplining them. In contrast, however, Marlene categorically
testified that the reason why she remains single is simply because she
abhors men and that she does not want to be around them. 30
Given the foregoing, We find no concrete evidence to support a finding
that petitioner's alleged disorder is rooted in his history antedating the
marriage.
In the same vein, We are not convinced that petitioner's alleged
incapacity is caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause.
An examination of petitioner's testimony reveals that he has fallen out
of love of respondent due to his dissatisfaction towards her rather than a
psychological disorder rooted in his personality. He cited reasons such as,
respondent's lack of time and attention to him and the children on account
of the business and respondent's neglect of her personal hygiene.
In fact, petitioner admitted that the marriage collapsed due to their
irreconcilable differences which became more complicated when he had an
affair with another woman. 31 This clearly suggests that petitioner's failure to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 continue his common life with respondent stems from his refusal, not
downright incapacity to do so.
Tan-Andal stressed that the psychological incapacity cannot be mere
"refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will." 32 Also, it has always been
held that mere irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no
wise constitute psychological incapacity. 33 Verily, an unsatisfactory
marriage is not a null and void marriage. 34
We likewise agree with the CA that petitioner failed to establish
respondent's alleged psychological illness and its incapacitating nature.
Records show that respondent refuted petitioner's accusation that she
was a neglectful wife to him. While it may be true that respondent spent
most of her time tending the grocery store, the appellate court found that
respondent still managed to spend quality time with petitioner and their
children. 35
Respondent likewise clarified that the grocery store actually belongs to
respondent and petitioner, thus, it is not unlikely that respondent would be
devoted to it as it is one of their means of livelihood. In fact, respondent took
over the business from her family upon the prodding of petitioner in order to
attain financial stability. Thus, petitioner cannot now lay the blame on
respondent for giving so much time and attention to their business for after
all, they all benefited from its operation, especially petitioner who was able
to purchase a brand new car out of the proceeds from the grocery store. 36
In sum, respondent had shown that she is capable of fulfilling her
marital obligations and that she valued her marriage as she even opposed
the petition for its annulment, actively participated in the trial of the case,
until its appeal to this Court.
In Tan-Andal, the Court has clarified that the quantum of proof required
in nullity cases is clear and convincing evidence, which requires more than
preponderant evidence but less than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Using
the same as yardstick, We find that the totality of evidence presented by
petitioner fell short of the quantum of evidence required to sustain a
conclusion that both petitioner and respondent are psychologically
incapacitated to assume the essential obligations of marriage.
WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is DENIED. The
September 9, 2013 Decision and the January 9, 2014 Resolution of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94751 are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Gesmundo, C.J., Zalameda and Marquez, JJ., concur.
Rosario, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes
* On official leave.
1. Rollo, pp. 49-76.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 2. Id. at 10-24. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred
in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang.
3. Id. at 45-46. Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante and concurred
in by Associate Justices Celia C. Librea-Leagogo and Melchor Q.C. Sadang.
4. Id. at 142-162. Penned by Presiding Judge Joselito dj. Vibandor.
5. Id. at 11.
6. Id.

7. Id. at 142.
8. Id. at 12.
9. Id. at 11.
10. Id.

11. Id.
12. Id. at 12.
13. Id.
14. Id. at 13.
15. Id.

16. Id.
17. Id. at 146-161.
18. Id. at 161-162.
19. Id. at 23.
20. Id. at 45.

21. Id. at 115-116.

22. Section 4. Contents of petition. — The petition shall be filed in eighteen (18)
copies, with the original copy intended for the court being indicated as such
by the petitioner and shall (a) state the full name of the appealing party as
the petitioner and the adverse party as respondent, without impleading the
lower courts or judges thereof either as petitioners or respondents; (b)
indicate the material dates showing when notice of the judgment or final
order or resolution subject thereof was received, when a motion for new trial
or reconsideration, if any, was filed and when notice of the denial thereof was
received; (c) set forth concisely a statement of the matters involved, and the
reasons or arguments relied on for the allowance of the petition; (d) be
accompanied by a clearly legible duplicate original, or a certified true copy of
the judgment or final order or resolution certified by the clerk of court of the
court a quo and the requisite number of plain copies thereof, and such
material portions of the record as would support the petition; and (e)
contain a sworn certification against forum shopping as provided in
the last paragraph of Section 2, Rule 42. (Emphasis supplied)
23. Section 5. Grounds for dismissal of appeal. — The appeal may be dismissed
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com
 motu proprio or on motion of the respondent on the following grounds:
xxx xxx xxx
(d) Failure to comply with the requirements regarding proof of service and
contents of and the documents which should accompany the petition;
24. 335 Phil. 664, 677-680 (1997).

25. G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.

26. Id.
27. Id.
28. TSN, February 13, 2008, pp. 15-16.
29. Id. at 11 and 25-27.

30. Id. at 13-14.

31. TSN, December 6, 2006, pp. 25-26.
32. Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 25.
33. Go-Yu v. Yu , G.R. No. 230443, April 3, 2019.
34. Id.

35. Rollo, p. 22.

36. Id. at 21-22.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2023 cdasiaonline.com