MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE, petitioner, vs. RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE,
JR.,respondent.
G.R. NO. 188400
March 08, 2017
Facts:
On June 21, 1984, Maria Teresa Tani and Rodolfo De la Fuente Jr. got
married in Mandaluyong City after being in a relationship for five (5) years.
They had two children.
While they were still sweethearts, Maria Teresa already noticed that
Rodolfo was an introvert and was prone to jealousy. His attitude worsened as
they went on with their marital life. His jealousy became so severe that he
even poked a gun to his 15 year old cousin and he treated Maria Teresa like a
sex slave who made the latter feel maltreated and molested. Sometime in 1986,
the couple quarreled because Rodolfo suspected that Maria Teresa was having an
affair. In the heat of their quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun at Maria Teresa's
head. She left and never saw Rodolfo again after that, and supported their
children by herself.
On June 3, 1999, Maria Teresa filed a petition for declaration of
nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity before the
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. As support to her petitions, clinical
psychologist, Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez was presented as an expert witness. However,
Rodolfo did not file any responsive pleading. The trial court eventually deemed
his non-appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence.
Before the promulgation of its decision, on June 26, 2002, the trial
court directed the Office of the Solicitor General to submit its comment on
Maria Teresa's formal offer of evidence. The Office of the Solicitor General
was also directed to submit its certification. The Office of the Solicitor
General, however, failed to comply with the trial court's orders; thus, the
case was submitted for decision without the certification and comment from the
Office of the Solicitor General. On August 14, 2002, the trial court
promulgated its decision granting the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage.
On August 20, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General filed a motion
for reconsideration. The Office of the Solicitor General explained that it was
unable to submit the required certification because it had no copies of the
transcripts of stenographic notes. It was also unable to inform the trial court
of its lack of transcripts due to the volume of cases it was handling On
September 13 2002, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration..
The Office of the Solicitor General filed an appeal before the Court of
Appeals. It argued that the trial court erred a) in deciding the case without
the required certification from the Office of the Solicitor General, 58 and b)
in giving credence to Dr. Lopez's conclusion of Rodolfo's severe personality disorder.
It held that Dr. Lopez's finding was based on insufficient data and did not
follow the standards set forth in the Molina
case. Still, Rodolfo did not file any responsive pleading.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC. In its resolution
dated May 25, 2009, CA denied the motion for reconsideration filed by Maria
Teresa.
On July 24, 2009, Maria Teresa filed a Petition for Review on
Certiorari. This time Rodolfo filed a Comment 70 stating that he was not
opposing Maria Teresa's Petition since "[h]e firmly believes that there is
in fact no more sense in adjudging him and petitioner as married."
Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for
Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.
Held:
Yes, the Court of Appeals erred in denying the petition for Declaration
of Nullity of Marriage
Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, we find that there was
sufficient compliance with Molina to
warrant the nullity of petitioner's marriage with respondent. Petitioner was
able to discharge the burden of proof that respondent suffered from
psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals is mistaken when it chided the
lower court for giving undue weight to the testimony of Dr. Lopez since he had
no chance to personally conduct a thorough study and analysis of respondent's
mental and psychological condition.
Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes states that the non-examination of one of the
parties will not automatically render as hearsay or invalidate the findings of
the examining psychiatrist or psychologist, since "marriage, by its very
definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior
of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely
witnessed mainly by the other.
Article 68 of the Family Code obligates the husband and wife "to
live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual
help and support." In this case, petitioner and respondent may have lived
together, but the facts narrated by petitioner show that respondent failed to,
or could not, comply with the obligations expected of him as a husband. He was
even apathetic that petitioner filed a petition for declaration of nullity of
their marriage.
The incurability and severity of respondent's psychological incapacity
were likewise discussed by Dr. Lopez. He vouched that a person with paranoid
personality disorder would
refuse to admit that there was something wrong and that there was a need
for treatment. This was corroborated by petitioner when she stated that
respondent repeatedly refused treatment. Petitioner consulted a lawyer, a
priest, and a doctor, and suggested couples counseling to respondent; however,
respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking professional help. Respondent
also refused to be examined by Dr. Lopez.
Dr. Lopez concluded that because of respondent's personality disorder,
he is incapacitated to perform his marital obligations of giving love, respect,
and support to the petitioner. He recommends that the marriage be annulled.
Respondent's repeated behavior of psychological abuse by intimidating,
stalking, and isolating his wife from her family and friends, as well as his
increasing acts of physical violence, are proof of his depravity, and utter
lack of comprehension of what marriage and partnership entail. It would be of
utmost cruelty for this Court to decree that petitioner should remain married
to respondent. After she had exerted efforts to save their marriage and their
family, respondent simply refused to believe that there was anything wrong in
their marriage. This shows that respondent truly could not comprehend and
perform his marital obligations. This fact is persuasive enough for this Court
to believe that respondent's mental illness is incurable.
The
petition is granted.
No comments:
Post a Comment