Dela Fuente v. Dela Fuente

9/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

G.R. No. 188400. March 8, 2017.*

MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE, petitioner, vs.
RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE, JR., respondent.
Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage;

Psychological Incapacity; Petition was able to discharge the
burden of proof that respondent suffered from psychological
incapacity.—Contrary to the ruling of the Court of Appeals, we
find that there was sufficient compliance with Republic v. Court of
Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198 (1997), 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 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. The
Court of Appeals cited Republic v. Dagdag, 351 SCRA 425 (2001),
where this Court held that “the root cause of psychological
incapacity must be medically or clinically identified and
sufficiently proven by experts.” The Court of Appeals then ruled
that “[o]bviously, this requirement is not deemed complied with
where no psychiatrist or medical doctor testifies on the alleged
psychological incapacity of one party.”
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Respondent’s paranoid
personality disorder made him distrustful and prone to extreme
jealousy and acts of depravity, incapacitating him to fully
comprehend and assume the essential obligations of marriage.—
Dr. Lopez’s testimony, as corroborated by petitioner, sufficiently
proved that respondent suffered from psychological incapacity.
Respondent’s paranoid personality disorder made him distrustful
and prone to extreme jealousy and acts of depravity,
incapacitating him to fully comprehend and assume the essential
obligations of marriage.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; The root cause of
respondent’s paranoid personality disorder was hereditary in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016d246aceb4df138146003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/24
nature as his own father suffered from a similar disorder.—By the

very nature of Arti-
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.

639
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 639

Tani-De la Fuente vs. De la Fuente, Jr.
cle 36, courts, despite having the ultimate task of decision-

making, must give due regard to expert opinion on the
psychological and mental disposition of the parties. The root cause
of respondent’s paranoid personality disorder was hereditary in
nature as his own father suffered from a similar disorder. Dr.
Lopez stated that respondent’s own psychological disorder
probably started during his late childhood years and developed in
his early adolescent years. Dr. Lopez explained that respondent’s
psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations was
likely caused by growing up with a pathogenic parental model.
The juridical antecedence of respondent’s psychological incapacity
was also sufficiently proven during trial. Petitioner attested that
she noticed respondent’s jealousy even before their marriage, and
that he would often follow her to make sure that she did not talk
to anyone or cheat on him. She believed that he would change
after they got married; however, this did not happen.
Respondent’s jealousy and paranoia were so extreme and severe
that these caused him to poke a gun at petitioner’s head.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—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 counselling to respondent; however,
respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking professional

help. Respondent also refused to be examined by Dr. Lopez.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Coercive control is a form of
psychological abuse, which refers to a pattern of behavior meant to
dominate a partner through different tactics such as physical and
sexual violence, threats, emotional insults, and economic
deprivation.—Coercive control is a form of psychological abuse,
which refers to a pattern of behavior meant to dominate a partner
through different tactics such as physical and sexual violence,
threats, emotional

640
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

insults, and economic deprivation. Although not specifically

named, coercive control as a form of psychological abuse or harm
has been recognized in Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence
Against Women and Children Act of 2004: SECTION 3. Definition
of Terms.—As used in this Act, (a) “Violence against women and
their children” refers to any act or a series of acts committed by
any person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child, or
against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within or
without the family abode, which result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or economic
abuse including threats of such acts, battery, assault, coercion,
harassment or arbitrary deprivation of liberty. It includes, but is
not limited to, the following acts: . . . . C. “Psychological violence”
refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to cause mental or
emotional suffering of the victim such as but not limited to
intimidation, harassment, stalking, damage to property, public
ridicule or humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental
infidelity. It includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the family
to which the victim belongs, or to witness pornography in any
form or to witness abusive injury to pets or to unlawful or
unwanted deprivation of the right to custody and/or visitation of
common children.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; 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.—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.

641
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 641

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rexie Efren A. Bugaring for petitioner.
Joel Joselito G. Parong for respondent.
LEONEN, J.:

Psychological incapacity is a mental illness that leads to
an inability to comply with or comprehend essential
marital obligations.
This resolves the Petition for Review1 filed by Maria
Teresa B. Tani-De la Fuente (Maria Teresa) assailing the
Court of Appeals’ Decision2 and Resolution3 dated August
29, 2008 and May 25, 2009, respectively, in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 76243, which reversed the Decision4 dated August 14,
2002 of Branch 107 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City in Civil Case No.
Q-99-37829.
Petitioner Maria Teresa and respondent Rodolfo De la
Fuente, Jr. (Rodolfo) first met when they were students at
the
_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 12-35.

2 Id., at pp. 37-53. The Decision, docketed as C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 76243, was penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin (now a
member of the Court) and concurred in by Associate Justices Estela M.
Perlas-Bernabe (now a member of the Court) and Ramon M. Bato, Jr. of
the Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3 Id., at pp. 55-56. The Resolution was penned by Associate Justice
Ramon M. Bato, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Mariano C. Del
Castillo and Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe (both members of the Court) of the
Special Former Seventeenth Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4 Id., at pp. 82-95. The Decision was penned by Presiding Judge
Rosalina L. Luna Pison.

642

University of Sto. Tomas. Soon thereafter, they became

sweethearts.5
After graduating from college, Maria Teresa found work
at the University of Sto. Tomas Treasurer’s Office.6
Meanwhile, Rodolfo, who was unable to finish his college
degree, found continued employment at his family’s
printing press business.7
While they were still sweethearts, Maria Teresa already
noticed that Rodolfo was an introvert and was prone to
jealousy.8 She also observed that Rodolfo appeared to have
no ambition in life and felt insecure of his siblings, who
excelled in their studies and careers.9
On June 21, 1984, Maria Teresa and Rodolfo got
married in Mandaluyong City. They had two children:
Maria Katharyn, who was born on May 23, 1985, and
Maria Kimberly, who was born on April 6, 1986.10
10 Id.
Rodolfo’s attitude worsened as they went on with their
marital life. He was jealous of everyone who talked to
Maria Teresa, and would even skip work at his family’s
printing press to stalk her.11 Rodolfo’s jealousy was so
severe that he once poked a gun at his own 15-year-old
cousin who was staying at their house because he
suspected his cousin of being Maria Teresa’s lover.12
In addition, Rodolfo treated Maria Teresa like a sex
slave. They would have sex four (4) or five (5) times a day.13
At times, Rodolfo would fetch Maria Teresa from her office

dur-
_______________
5 Id., at p. 83.
6 Id., at p. 84.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id.
11 Id., at p. 85.
12 Id.
13 Id.

643
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 643

ing her lunch break, just so they could have sex.14 During
sexual intercourse, Rodolfo would either tie her to the bed
or poke her with things.15 Rodolfo also suggested that they
invite a third person with them while having sex, or for
Maria Teresa to have sex with another man in Rodolfo’s
presence.16 Rodolfo’s suggestions made Maria Teresa feel
molested and maltreated.17 Whenever Maria Teresa
refused Rodolfo’s advances or suggestions, he would get
angry and they would quarrel.18
Maria Teresa sought the advice of a doctor, a lawyer,
and a priest, as well as any person she thought could help
her and Rodolfo.19 Maria Teresa also suggested that she
and Rodolfo undergo marriage counseling, but Rodolfo
refused and deemed it as mere “kalokohan.”20
Sometime in 1986, the couple quarrelled because Rodolfo
suspected that Maria Teresa was having an affair.21 In the
heat of their quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun at Maria
Teresa’s head. Maria Teresa, with their two (2) daughters
in tow, left Rodolfo and their conjugal home after the gun-
poking incident. Maria Teresa never saw Rodolfo again
after that, and she supported their children by herself.22
On June 3, 1999, Maria Teresa filed a petition for
declaration of nullity of marriage23 before the Regional
Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was initially archived
because Rodolfo failed to file a responsive pleading.24 Maria
Teresa moved for the
_______________
14 Id.
15 Id., at p. 86.
16 Id.
17 Id.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id., at pp. 86-87.
22 Id., at p. 87.
23 Id., at p. 151. Comment of the Office of the Solicitor General.
24 Id., at p. 153.

644

revival of the Petition.25 The trial court granted the motion

and referred the case to the Office of the City Prosecutor for
collusion investigation.26 Assistant City Prosecutor Jocelyn
S. Reyes found no collusion and recommended the trial of
the case on the merits.27
Despite notice, Rodolfo failed to attend the scheduled
pretrial conference.28 The pretrial conference was declared
closed and terminated, and Maria Teresa was allowed to
present her evidence.29
Aside from Maria Teresa, Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez (Dr.
Lopez), a clinical psychologist, was presented as an expert
witness.30 Dr. Lopez testified that he conducted an in-depth
interview with Maria Teresa to gather information on her
family background and her marital life with Rodolfo, and
subjected her to a battery of psychological tests.31 Dr.
Lopez also interviewed Rodolfo’s best friend.32
After subjecting Maria Teresa to interviews and tests,
Dr. Lopez concluded that Maria Teresa was not suffering
from any severe mental disorder and had no indication of
any organic or functional impairment.33 Although Dr.
Lopez found that Maria Teresa had an emotionally
disturbed personality, he opined that this was not severe
enough to constitute psychological incapacity.34
_______________
25 Id.
26 Id.
27 Id., at p. 83.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id., at p. 87.
31 Id.
32 Id.
33 Id., at p. 88.
34 Id.

645
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 645

Dr. Lopez affirmed that he sent Rodolfo a letter of

invitation through registered mail.35 After two (2) months,
Rodolfo contacted Dr. Lopez and said, “Doctor, ano ba ang
pakialam niyo sa amin, hindi niyo naman ako kilala.” Dr.
Lopez explained that he only wanted to hear Rodolfo’s side
of the story, but Rodolfo replied with, “[I]nuulit ko doktor,
wala kayong pakialam sa akin.”36
Dr. Lopez diagnosed Rodolfo with “paranoid personality
disorder manifested by [Rodolfo’s] damaging behavior like
reckless driving and extreme jealousy; his being distrustful
and suspicious; his severe doubts and distrust of friends
and relatives of [Maria Teresa]; his being irresponsible and
lack of remorse; his resistance to treatment; and his
emotional coldness and severe immaturity.”37
Dr. Lopez stated that Rodolfo’s disorder was one of the
severe forms of personality disorder, even more severe than
the other personality disorders like borderline and
narcissistic personality disorders.38 Dr. Lopez explained
that Rodolfo’s personality disorder was most probably
caused by a pathogenic parental model.39 Rodolfo’s family
background showed that his father was a psychiatric
patient, and Rodolfo might have developed psychic
contamination called double insanity, a symptom similar to
his father’s.40 Dr. Lopez further claimed that Rodolfo’s
disorder was serious and incurable because of his severe
paranoia.41
Dr. Lopez recommended that Maria Teresa and
Rodolfo’s marriage be annulled due to Rodolfo’s incapacity
to perform his marital obligations.42
_______________
35 Id.
36 Id.
37 Id., at pp. 88-89.
38 Id., at p. 89.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id., at p. 90.

646

Summons was served upon Rodolfo but he did not file

any responsive pleading.43 He likewise did not appear
during the pretrial conference.44 He was given a specific
date to present evidence but he still failed to appear.45 The
trial court eventually deemed his nonappearance as a
waiver of his right to present evidence.46
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.47 The Office of the
Solicitor General was also directed to submit its
certification.48 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.49
On August 14, 2002, the trial court promulgated its
Decision50 granting the petition for declaration of nullity of
marriage.
While Dr. Lopez was not able to personally examine
Rodolfo, the trial court gave credence to his findings as
they were based on information gathered from credible
informants. The trial court held that the marriage between
Maria Teresa and Rodolfo should be declared null and void
because “[Rodolfo’s] psychological incapacity [was] grave,
serious and incurable.”51 The dispositive portion of the trial
court’s decision reads:
_______________
43 Id.
44 Id.
45 Id.
46 Id.
47 Id., at p. 41.
48 Id.
49 Id.
50 Id., at pp. 82-95.
51 Id., at p. 93.

647
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 647

WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment

is hereby rendered, to wit:
(1) Declaring the marriage of petitioner, MARIA TERESA B.
TANI-DE LA FUENTE to respondent, RODOLFO DE LA
FUENTE, JR. null and void on the ground of respondent’s
psychological incapacity pursuant to Article 36 of the Family
Code. Their conjugal partnership (sic) property relations is
hereby dissolved. There being no mention of properties
acquired by the parties, no pronouncement as to its liquidation
and partition is hereby made;
(2) Their children, Maria Katharyn and Maria Kimberly, both
surnamed De La Fuente shall remain legitimate. They shall
remain in the custody of the petitioner;
(3) Both parties must support their children. There being no
evidence presented as to the capability of the respondent to
give support, no pronouncement is hereby made in the
meantime;
(4) Henceforth, the petitioner shall be known by her maiden
name, TANI.
Let copies of this Decision be furnished the Local Civil Registrars
of Quezon City and Mandaluyong City where the marriage was
celebrated upon the finality of this Decision.
SO ORDERED.52 (Emphasis in the original)

On August 20, 2002, the Office of the Solicitor General
filed a motion for reconsideration.53 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.54 It was also unable to
inform the trial court of
_______________
52 Id., at pp. 94-95.

53 Id., at p. 42.
54 Id.

648

its lack of transcripts due to the volume of cases it was

handling.55
On September 13, 2002, the trial court denied the
motion for reconsideration, with the dispositive portion
reading:

WHEREFORE, considering the foregoing, the Motion for
Reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General
is hereby deemed moot and academic.
This Court would like to call the attention of the Office
of the Solicitor General that this case was filed on June 3,
1999 and there should be no more delay in the disposition
of the case.56

The Office of the Solicitor General filed an appeal before
the Court of Appeals.57 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.59
The Court of Appeals granted60 the Office of the Solicitor
General’s appeal.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the testimony of Dr.
Lopez was unreliable for being hearsay, thus, the trial
court should not have given it weight.61 The Court of
Appeals also disagreed with Dr. Lopez’s finding that
Rodolfo’s behavior de-
_______________
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Id.
58 Id.
59 Id., at p. 83.
60 Id., at pp. 37-53.
61 Id., at p. 50.

649
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 649

scended from psychological illness contemplated under

Article 36 of the Family Code.62
In addition, the Court of Appeals emphasized that Maria
Teresa’s admission that she married Rodolfo with the belief
that he would change, and that they were in a relationship
for five (5) years before getting married, showed that they
were in good terms during the early part of their marriage.
It also negated her claim that Rodolfo’s psychological defect
existed at the time of the celebration of their marriage, and
that it deprived him of the ability to assume the essential
duties of marriage.63 The dispositive portion of the Court of
Appeals’ decision reads:
WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED AUGUST 14, 2002

is REVERSED and the petition for declaration of nullity of the
marriage of the parties is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.64 (Emphasis in the original)

Maria Teresa moved for reconsideration65 but this was
denied by the Court of Appeals in its Resolution66 dated
May 25, 2009.
On July 24, 2009, Maria Teresa filed a Petition for
Review on Certiorari.67
Petitioner argued that based on current jurisprudence,
trial courts had a wider discretion on whether expert
opinion was needed to prove psychological incapacity.68
Petitioner further argued that for as long as the trial court
had basis in
_______________
62 Id., at p. 51.
63 Id., at p. 52.
64 Id.
65 Id., at pp. 64-71.
66 Id., at pp. 55-56.
67 Id., at pp. 12-35.
68 Id., at p. 28.

650

concluding that psychological incapacity existed, such

conclusion should be upheld.69
Rodolfo filed a Comment70 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.”71
The Office of the Solicitor General, in its Comment,72
agreed that a physician was not required to declare a
person psychologically incapacitated but emphasized that
the evidence presented must be able to adequately prove
the presence of a psychological condition. The Office of the
Solicitor General maintained that Maria Teresa was
unable to sufficiently prove Rodolfo’s alleged psychological
incapacity.73
The Office of the Solicitor General pointed out that Dr.
Lopez’s psychological report stated that his assessment was
based on interviews he made with petitioner and two (2) of
the parties’ common friends. However, Dr. Lopez did not
name the two (2) common friends in the report.74
Furthermore, during trial, Dr. Lopez testified that he only
interviewed petitioner and Rodolfo’s best friend, not two (2)
friends as indicated in his report.75 The Office of the
Solicitor General insisted that the finding of Rodolfo’s
psychological incapacity should be dismissed as hearsay as
it was based solely on information given by petitioner to
Dr. Lopez.76
The only issue raised for the resolution of this Court is
whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Petition
for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage because petitioner’s
_______________
69 Id.
70 Id., at pp. 104-105.
71 Id., at p. 104.
72 Id., at pp. 149-184.
73 Id., at p. 164.
74 Id., at p. 168.
75 Id.
76 Id.

651
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 651

evidence was insufficient to prove that Rodolfo was

psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital
obligations.
The Petition is granted.
The 1995 case of Santos v. Court of Appeals77 was the
first case that attempted to lay down the standards for
determining psychological incapacity under Article 36 of
the Family Code. Santos declared that “psychological
incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b)
juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.”78 Furthermore,
the 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[.]”79
Two (2) years later, Republic v. Court of Appeals and
Molina,80 provided the guidelines to be followed when
interpreting and applying Article 36 of the Family Code:
(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.
_______________
77 310 Phil. 21; 240 SCRA 20 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].
78 Id., at p. 39; pp. 33-34.

79 Id., at p. 40; p. 34.
80 335 Phil. 664; 268 SCRA 198 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].

652

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 may not be
psychologically capacitated to procreate, bear and

653
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 653

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 characterological 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 de-

654

creed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.

This is one instance where, in view of the evident source and
purpose of the Family Code provision, contemporaneous religious
interpretation is to be given persuasive effect. Here, the State and
the Church — while remaining independent, separate and apart
from each other — shall walk together in synodal cadence towards
the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the
family as the inviolable base of the nation.
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal
and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No
decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues
a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating
therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case
may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the
prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification
within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed
submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall
discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi
contemplated under Canon 1095.81 (Emphasis in the original)

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 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. The
Court of
_______________
81 Id., at pp. 676-680; pp. 209-213.

655
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 655

Appeals cited Republic v. Dagdag,82 where this Court held

that “the root cause of psychological incapacity must be
medically or clinically identified and sufficiently proven by
experts.”83 The Court of Appeals then ruled that
“[o]bviously, this requirement is not deemed complied with
where no psychiatrist or medical doctor testifies on the
alleged psychological incapacity of one party.”84
The Court of Appeals is mistaken.
Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes85 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.”86
Marcos v. Marcos87 emphasizes that Molina does not
require a physician to examine a person and declare
him/her to be psychologically incapacitated. What matters
is that the totality of evidence presented establishes the
party’s psychological condition.88
Dr. Lopez’s testimony, as corroborated by petitioner,
sufficiently proved that respondent suffered from
psychological incapacity. Respondent’s paranoid
personality disorder made him distrustful and prone to
extreme jealousy and acts of depravity, incapacitating him
to fully comprehend and as-
_______________
82 404 Phil. 249; 351 SCRA 425 (2001) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second
Division].
83 Rollo, p. 50.
84 Id.
85 642 Phil. 602; 628 SCRA 461 (2010) [Per J. Nachura, Second
Division].
86 Id., at p. 627; p. 487.
87 397 Phil. 840; 343 SCRA 755 (2000) [Per J. Panganiban, Third
Division].
88 Id., at p. 850; p. 764.

656

sume the essential obligations of marriage. As the trial

court found:
Dr. Lopez testified that he arrived at his conclusion of

respondent’[s] personality by taking into consideration the
psychological impression and conclusion he gathered from the
analysis of the different behaviors he manifested during the time
that he and petitioner were living together. According to him,
under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual, he found the respondent
to be suffering from a paranoid personality disorder manifested by
the respondent’s damaging behavior like reckless driving and
extreme jealousy; his being distrustful and suspicious; his severe
doubts and distrust of friends and relatives of the petitioner; his
being irresponsible and lack of remorse; his resistance to
treatment; and his emotional coldness and severe immaturity. He
also testified that this kind of disorder is actually one of the
severe forms of personality disorder even more severe than the
other personality disorders like the borderline and narcissistic
personality disorders.
As to the root cause, [h]e explained that this must have been
caused by a pathogenic parental model. As he investigated the
family background of the respondent, Dr. Lopez discovered that
his father was a psychiatric patient such that the respondent
developed a similar symptom or psychic contamination which is
called double insanity. This, according to Dr. Lopez is usually
developed among close family members, bestfriends (sic),
sweethearts and even couples who are close to one another; that
people close to one another get psychically contaminated; that
surprisingly, the symptom that the father manifested is the same
as those of the respondent. The said disorder started during
respondent’s late childhood years and developed in his early
adolescent years.
He further testified that this disorder is very severe, serious
and incurable because of the severe paranoia of the patient; that
patients with this kind of personality disorder could never accept
that there is something wrong with them and if ever forced to
seek treat-

657
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 657

ment, they would rather engage in an intellectual battle with the

therapist rather than cooperate with them.
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.89 (Emphasis
supplied)

By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having
the ultimate task of decision-making, must give due regard
to expert opinion on the psychological and mental
disposition of the parties.90
The root cause of respondent’s paranoid personality
disorder was hereditary in nature as his own father
suffered from a similar disorder. Dr. Lopez stated that
respondent’s own psychological disorder probably started
during his late childhood years and developed in his early
adolescent years. Dr. Lopez explained that respondent’s
psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations
was likely caused by growing up with a pathogenic
parental model.
The juridical antecedence of respondent’s psychological
incapacity was also sufficiently proven during trial.
Petitioner attested that she noticed respondent’s jealousy
even before their marriage, and that he would often follow
her to make sure that she did not talk to anyone or cheat
on him.91 She believed that he would change after they got
married;92 however, this did not happen. Respondent’s
jealousy and paranoia were so extreme and severe that
these caused him to poke a gun at petitioner’s head.93
_______________
89 Rollo, pp. 88-90.

90 Halili v. Santos-Halili, 607 Phil. 1, 4; 589 SCRA 25, 28 (2009) [Per
J. Corona, Special First Division].
91 Rollo, p. 85.
92 Id., at p. 84.
93 Id., at p. 87.

658

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
counselling to respondent; however, respondent refused all
of her attempts at seeking professional help. Respondent
also refused to be examined by Dr. Lopez.
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.
This Court also noticed respondent’s repeated acts of
harassment towards petitioner, which show his need to
intimidate and dominate her, a classic case of coercive
control. At first, respondent only inflicted nonphysical
forms of mistreatment on petitioner by alienating her from
her family and friends due to his jealousy, and stalking her
due to his paranoia. However, his jealousy soon escalated
into physical violence when, on separate instances, he
poked a gun at his teenage cousin, and at petitioner.
Coercive control is a form of psychological abuse, which
refers to a pattern of behavior meant to dominate a partner
through different tactics such as physical and sexual
violence, threats, emotional insults, and economic
deprivation.94 Although not specifically named, coercive
control as a form of
_______________
94 Kuennen, Tamara L., Analyzing the Impact of Coercion on Domestic

Violence Victims: How Much is Too Much?, 22 Berkeley Journal of Gender,
Law & Justice 8 (2013).

659
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 659

psychological abuse or harm has been recognized in

Republic Act No. 9262 or the Anti-Violence Against Women
and Children Act of 2004:
SECTION 3. Definition of Terms.—As used in this Act:

(a) “Violence against women and their children” refers to any act
or a series of acts committed by any person against a woman who
is his wife, former wife, or against a woman with whom the
person has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom
he has a common child, or against her child whether legitimate or
illegitimate, within or without the family abode, which result in
or is likely to result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty. It includes, but is not limited to, the following acts:
. . . .
C. “Psychological violence” refers to acts or omissions
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the
family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to
pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custody and/or visitation of common children.

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

660

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.
In granting the petition and declaring void the marriage
of Maria Teresa and Rodolfo, this Court reiterates the
pronouncement we made in an opinion in Mallilin v.
Jamesolamin:95
Our choices of intimate partners define us — inherent

ironically in our individuality. Consequently, when the law speaks
of the nature, consequences, and incidents of marriage governed
by law, this refers to responsibility to children, property relations,
disqualifications, privileges, and other matters limited to
ensuring the stability of society. The state’s interest should not
amount to unwarranted intrusions into individual liberties.
Since the State’s interest must be toward the stability of
society, the notion of psychological incapacity should not only be
based on a medical or psychological disorder, but should consist of
the inability to comply with essential marital obligations such
that public interest is imperiled.96

Lastly, this Court takes note of Ngo Te v. Gutierrez Yu
Te’s observation that a straitjacket application of the
Molina guidelines “has taken its toll on people who have to
live with deviant behavior, moral insanity and sociopathic
personality anomaly, which, like termites, consume little
by little the very
_______________
95 G.R. No. 192718, February 18, 2015, 751 SCRA 1 [Per J. Mendoza,
Second Division].
96 Id., at p. 46.

661
VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 661

foundation of their families, our basic social institutions.”97

Ironically, the ultimate effect of such stringent application
of the Molina guidelines is the perversion of the family
unit, the very institution that our laws are meant to
protect.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is

GRANTED. The marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De la
Fuente and Rodolfo De la Fuente, Jr. is declared NULL
and VOID. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals dated August 29, 2008 and May 25, 2009,
respectively, in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 76243 are REVERSED
and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated August 14, 2002 of
Branch 107, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City in Civil
Case No. Q-99-37829 is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro,** Peralta

and Mendoza, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De la

Fuente and Rodolfo De la Fuente, Jr. declared null and
void, judgment and resolution reversed and set aside.
Notes.—Sexual infidelity or perversion and

abandonment do not, by themselves, constitute grounds for
declaring a marriage void based on psychological
incapacity. (Mallilin vs. Jamesolamin, 751 SCRA 1 [2015])
To consider church annulments as additional grounds
for annulment under Article 36 would be legislating from
the bench. (Id.)

——o0o——
_______________
97 Ngo Te v. Yu-Te, 598 Phil. 666, 696; 579 SCRA 193, 224-225 (2009)
[Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
** Designated fifth member per S.O. No. 2416-EE dated January 4,
2017.
© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Dela Fuente v. Dela Fuente

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dela Fuente v. Dela Fuente

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Dela Fuente v. Dela Fuente

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/12/2019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED 819

G.R. No. 188400. March 8, 2017.*

Civil Law; Family Law; Marriages; Annulment of Marriage;

nature as his own father suffered from a similar disorder.—By the

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 639

cle 36, courts, despite having the ultimate task of decision-

respondent refused all of her attempts at seeking professional

640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

insults, and economic deprivation. Although not specifically

increasing acts of physical violence, are proof of his depravity, and

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 641

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

1 Rollo, pp. 12-35.

642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

University of Sto. Tomas. Soon thereafter, they became

At times, Rodolfo would fetch Maria Teresa from her office

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 643

644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

revival of the Petition.25 The trial court granted the motion

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 645

Dr. Lopez affirmed that he sent Rodolfo a letter of

646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Summons was served upon Rodolfo but he did not file

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 647

WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment

52 Id., at pp. 94-95.

648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

its lack of transcripts due to the volume of cases it was

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 649

scended from psychological illness contemplated under

WHEREFORE, the DECISION DATED AUGUST 14, 2002

650 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

concluding that psychological incapacity existed, such

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 651

evidence was insufficient to prove that Rodolfo was

(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage

77 310 Phil. 21; 240 SCRA 20 (1995) [Per J. Vitug, En Banc].

78 Id., at p. 39; pp. 33-34.

652 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 653

raise his/her own children as an essential obligation of marriage.

654 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tani-De la Fuente vs. De la Fuente, Jr.

creed as canonically invalid should also be decreed civilly void.

81 Id., at pp. 676-680; pp. 209-213.

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 655

Appeals cited Republic v. Dagdag,82 where this Court held

656 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

sume the essential obligations of marriage. As the trial

Dr. Lopez testified that he arrived at his conclusion of

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 657

ment, they would rather engage in an intellectual battle with the

Dr. Lopez concluded that because of respondent’s personality

89 Rollo, pp. 88-90.

658 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

The incurability and severity of respondent’s

94 Kuennen, Tamara L., Analyzing the Impact of Coercion on Domestic

VOL. 819, MARCH 8, 2017 659

psychological abuse or harm has been recognized in