REPUBLIC v. QUINTERO-HAMANO
Topic: Void Marriages;
Psychological Incapacity
Nature of the Case: Petition
for declaration of nullity on the ground of psychological incapacity
Doctrines:
- · Art. 36. 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.
- · Toshio’s act of abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven to be due to some kind of psychological illness.
- · As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
- · Although, as a rule, there was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped respondent’s case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert witness.
Facts:
On January 14, 1988, respondent
Lolita Quintero-Hamano and Toshio were married in Cavite. Unknown to
respondent, Toshio was psychologically incapacitated to assume his marital
responsibilities, which incapacity became manifest only after the marriage. One
month after their marriage, Toshio returned to Japan and promised to return by
Christmas to celebrate the holidays with his family. After sending money to
respondent for two months, Toshio stopped giving financial support. She wrote
him several times but he never responded. Sometime in 1991, respondent learned
from her friends that Toshio visited the Philippines but he did not bother to
see her and their child.
On June 17, 1996, respondent
filed a complaint for declaration of nullity of her marriage to her husband
Toshio Hamano, a Japanese national, on the ground of psychological incapacity.
The prosecutor filed a report
finding that no collusion existed between the parties. The trial court granted
respondent’s motion to present her evidence ex parte. She then testified on how
Toshio abandoned his family. She thereafter offered documentary evidence to
support her testimony.
In declaring the nullity of
the marriage on the ground of Toshio’s psychological incapacity, the trial
court held that: It is clear from the records of the case that Toshio failed to
fulfill his obligations as husband of the petitioner and father to his
daughter. He remained irresponsible and unconcerned over the needs and welfare
of his family. Such indifference, to the mind of the Court, is a clear
manifestation of insensitivity and lack of respect for his wife and child,
which characterizes a very immature person. Certainly, such behavior could be
traced to Toshio’s mental incapacity and disability of entering into marital
life.
The Sol gen appealed to the CA
but the same was denied.
Lolita exerted all efforts to
contact Toshio, to no avail. CA concluded that Toshio was psychologically
incapacitated to perform his marital obligations to his family, and to “observe
mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support” pursuant
to Article 68 of the Family Code of the Philippines.
The CA emphasized that this
case could not be equated with Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina and
Santos vs. Court of Appeals. In those cases, the spouses were Filipinos while
this case involved a “mixed marriage,” the husband being a Japanese national.
According to petitioner, mere
abandonment by Toshio of his family and his insensitivity to them did not
automatically constitute psychological incapacity. His behavior merely
indicated simple inadequacy in the personality of a spouse falling short of
reasonable expectations. Respondent failed to prove any severe and incurable
personality disorder on the part of Toshio, in accordance with the guidelines
set in Molina.
Issue/s:
WON respondent was able to
prove the psychological incapacity of Toshio Hamano to perform his marital
obligations
Ruling: No
We find that the totality of
evidence presented fell short of proving that Toshio was psychologically
incapacitated to assume his marital responsibilities. Toshio’s act of
abandonment was doubtlessly irresponsible but it was never alleged nor proven
to be due to some kind of psychological illness. After respondent testified on
how Toshio abandoned his family, no other evidence was presented showing that
his behavior was caused by a psychological disorder. Although, as a rule, there
was no need for an actual medical examination, it would have greatly helped
respondent’s case had she presented evidence that medically or clinically
identified his illness. This could have been done through an expert witness.
This respondent did not do.
We must remember that
abandonment is also a ground for legal separation. There was no showing that
the case at bar was not just an instance of abandonment in the context of legal
separation. We cannot presume psychological defect from the mere fact that
Toshio abandoned his family immediately after the celebration of the marriage.
As we ruled in Molina, it is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet
his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must
be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological, not physical,
illness. There was no proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor in the
person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that
effectively incapacitates a person from accepting and complying with the obligations
essential to marriage.
According to the appellate
court, the requirements in Molina and Santos do not apply here because the
present case involves a “mixed marriage,” the husband being a Japanese
national. We disagree. In proving psychological incapacity, we find no
distinction between an alien spouse and a Filipino spouse. We cannot be lenient
in the application of the rules merely because the spouse alleged to be
psychologically incapacitated happens to be a foreign national. The medical and
clinical rules to determine psychological incapacity were formulated on the
basis of studies of human behavior in general. Hence, the norms used for
determining psychological incapacity should apply to any person regardless of
nationality.
Dispositive:
WHEREFORE, the petition for
review is hereby GRANTED. The decision dated August 28, 1997 of the Court of
Appeals is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
** notes:
Molina Case: Guidelines in the interpretation and application of Article 36
(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.
(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. 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 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.
(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.
(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. x x x
(8) The trial court must
order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as
counsel for the state.
Santos Case:The guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier
mandated by the Court
“psychological incapacity
must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c)
incurability.” The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine
the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root
cause may be “medically or clinically identified.” What is important is the
presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party’s psychological
condition. For indeed, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to
sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination
of the person concerned need not be resorted to.
No comments:
Post a Comment