ChanRobles Virtual law Library
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
THIRD DIVISION G.R. No. 176464 : February 4, 2010 EDWARD N. LIM, Petitioner, v. MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ-LIM, Respondent. D E C I S I O N NACHURA, J.: This petition raises a far-from-novel issue, i.e., the invalidity of a marriage on the ground of either or both of the parties psychological incapacity. However, similar petitions continue to hound the lower courts, even with the stringent requirements for the grant of declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, given the facility with which married persons are diagnosed with personality disorders. The instant petition for review on certiorari assails the decision1cralaw of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 74822, which reversed the decision2cralaw of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 140, Makati City, in Civil Case No. 99-1852. First, the all too familiar antecedents of man-meets-woman; they get married after a whirlwind relationship; and, not surprisingly, the marriage goes awry. Petitioner Edward N. Lim and respondent Maria Cheryl Sta. Cruz-Lim met in 1978 in Cebu, where petitioner, who resides in Makati City, spent a semestral break from college; and respondent, who resides in Gingoog City, Cagayan de Oro, was a boarder in petitioner's uncle's house. At that time, petitioner was twenty-six (26) years old, a college student, and working in the family business, while respondent was a secretarial student. After less than a year of courtship via long distance phone calls, petitioner and respondent became sweethearts in early 1979. Within that year, or on December 8, 1979, the two were wed at the Don Bosco Church in Makati City, with a reception at Midtown Ramada Hotel. As is customary among those of Chinese descent, petitioner and respondent took up residence with the former's grandparents and parents in Forbes Park, Makati City. The couple was blessed with three (3) children: Lester Edward,3cralaw Candice Grace,4cralaw and Mariano III.5cralaw During their stay in Forbes Park, all living, household and medical expenses were paid and provided by petitioner's grandparents. Petitioner's salary of October 14, 1990 proved to be a black-letter day for the union of petitioner and respondent. That morning, respondent registered a complaint, which was recorded in the police blotter of the Makati City police, about a prior incident where she caught petitioner in their house in a compromising situation with the stay-in caregiver of petitioner's grandmother. This incident landed on the pages of a tabloid newspaper, Abante, where petitioner, his grandparents house and the family business were all named and identified. Naturally, this caused embarrassment and humiliation to petitioner and to the rest of his family and relatives. Also, on that same day, respondent finally left petitioner and brought with her their three (3) children. Respondent forcibly opened their cabinet and cleaned out the contents thereof, which included petitioner's passport, jewelry, and a land title in petitioner's name. Respondent likewise filed a criminal complaint for Concubinage and Physical Injuries against petitioner which was eventually dismissed by the investigating prosecutor for lack of merit. Subsequently, respondent filed with the RTC of Makati City an action for support against petitioner and petitioner's parents. Thereafter, the trial court directed petitioner to give a monthly support of On October 29, 1999, petitioner filed a petition and sought the declaration of nullity of his marriage to respondent on the ground of the latter's psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. Three years thereafter, on July 22, 2002, petitioner filed an amended petition including an allegation of his own psychological incapacity, as both he and respondent were diagnosed with personality disordersdependent personality disorder and histrionic personality disorder, respectively. Following the exchange of pleadings between the parties, petitioner presented evidence, which consisted of the testimonies of Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, a psychiatrist; and Maxima Adato, petitioner's co-employee in the distillery. In addition, petitioner offered in evidence Dr. Villegas Psychiatric Report, which concluded that the parties were suffering from personality disorders. Respondent, despite filing an Answer to the petition denying the allegations therein, waived her right to present evidence. Based on the foregoing, primarily on the Psychiatric Report, the RTC declared the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void as the two were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The RTC disposed of the case, to wit: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court hereby DECLARES the marriage of EDWARD N. LIM and MA. CHERYL STA. CRUZ on December 8, 1979 in Makati City VOID AB INITIO on ground of psychological incapacity of both parties pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code with all the effects and consequences of all the existing provisions of law. As regards the custody of the children, considering that all of them are over seven (7) years of age, the Court shall take into account the choice of each of the child, unless the Court finds compelling reasons to order otherwise. Let copies thereof be sent to the Office of Local Civil Registrar of Makati City and the National Statistics Office, Quezon City who are directed to CANCEL from their respective Civil Registries the marriage of EDWARD N. LIM and CHERYL STA. CRUZ on December 8, 1979 in Makati City. The Conjugal Partnership of the Spouses shall be liquidated, partitioned, and distributed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 50 and 51 of the Family Code.7cralaw Disagreeing completely with the RTC's disposition, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) appealed to the CA, questioning the RTC's finding that the parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. The appellate court granted the OSG's appeal and reversed the trial court. It ruled thus: WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Accordingly, the assailed Decision dated March 25, 2002 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage between herein parties is hereby declared subsisting and valid.8cralaw Hence, this petition for review on certiorari positing the singular issue of whether the marriage between petitioner and respondent is null and void on the ground of the parties psychological incapacity. We deny the petition. The seminal ruling in Santos v. Court of Appeals9cralaw cites three (3) factors characterizing psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations: (1) gravity, (2) juridical antecedence, (3) incurability. We expounded on the foregoing, to wit: The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. Given the foregoing stringent requisites and without going into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals,10cralaw petitioner, as the party alleging his own psychological incapacity and that of his spouse, had the special albatross to prove that he and his wife were suffering from "the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage."11cralaw Instead, petitioner presented the Psychiatric Report of Dr. Villegas, the conclusions drawn are reprinted in full: PSYCHODYNAMICS OF THE CASE: Edward is of Chinese descent, born and grew up in a Philippine environment. He was raised and educated in Philippine school. However, despite his prominent Filipino exposure, his immediate family still practice a strong cultural Chinese tradition within his home. Very clannish, all family members has to stay in one roof, in a communal style of living, with the elders in this case, the grandparents are recognized as the authority. Most of the family members tend to rebel, but at the end, tendency to be submissive and passive were developed. But despite physical closeness, Edward did not build close attachments to his parents. The father was exceptionally temperamental and moody, while the mother was extremely asocial, isolated, withdrawn and seclusive, that repelled him from both of them. Surrogate parenting from his grandparents satisfied his dependency needs. He developed into a kind, obedient, submissive and passive adult, which became the center of jealousy and rivalry among the siblings. Under stressful situation, he became depressed and had suicidal intentions. He felt so secure with his grandparents, that he subordinated his needs to them. He allowed them to assume responsibilities for major areas of his life, as in his family decision and independence. He has difficulty expressing disagreements with others, especially with his wife, because of fear of loss of support or approval. So that even an abusive spouse may be tolerated for long periods, in order not to disturb the sense of attachments. A persevering worker, he had difficulties initiating change due to lack of self-confidence in judgment or abilities, rather than lack of motivation or energy. Within 10 years in marriage, he tried hard to grant his wife's wishes, but to no avail. His wife left him in October, 1990 together with their three children, whom he missed very much. The death of his grandfather in 1994 was a big blow to him, but he finds solace and security in visiting his grave every Sunday since then. On the other hand, Cheryl was initially congenial, which lasted only for a short period of time. Later, her immaturity interfered with her behavioral pattern and adjustment. Apparently, she could not recognize realities in their family set-up and will insist on her fantasized wishes. When not granted, shell go into tantrums, moodiness, anger, hostilities, exhibitions and dramatizations, just to get attention and to emphasize her wants. Her attention-getting devices will be endless and her suggestibility to the influence of others is very fertile. Based on the family background, pattern of behavior, and outcome of their marriage, clinical evidence showed that Mr. Edward Lim is suffering from a Dependent Personality Disorder, while Cheryl is suffering from Histrionic Personality Disorder associated with immaturity, that render both of them psychologically incapacitated to perform the duties and responsibilities of marriage. The root cause of the above clinical condition on the part of Edward was due to overindulgence and overprotection of his surrogate parents, that left no room for him to develop his own abilities, encouraging too much dependence, lack of self-confidence, self-doubt, passivity, pessimism, and depression. How much of the Dependent Disorder was due to developmental defect and how much was due to strong Chinese culture and traditions, will be difficult to assess. On the part of Cheryl, the root cause was due to unsatisfied dependency needs that finds gratification in adult stage, in the form of attention-seeking devices, manifested in her clinical symptoms. Both existed prior to marriage, but became obviously manifested only after the celebration, due to marital stresses and demands. Both disorders are considered permanent and incurable, because they started early in their developmental stage and therefore became so engrained in their personality structure. Both are severe and grave in degree, because they hampered their normal functioning, specifically related to a difficult heterosexual adjustment.12cralaw In addition, Dr. Villegas testified in the lower court as to the findings contained in the Psychiatric Report. Thus, on direct examination, Dr. Villegas testimony consisted of the following:
On cross examination by the prosecutor, Dr. Villegas testified as follows:
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV),16cralaw provides general diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:
The alleged personality disorders of the parties have the following specified diagnostic criteria: 301.6 DEPENDENT PERSONALITY DISORDER A pervasive and excessive need to be taken care of that leads to submissive and clinging behavior and fears of separation, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
301.5 HISTRIONIC PERSONALITY DISORDER A pervasive pattern of excessive emotionality and attention seeking, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:
Significantly, nowhere in Dr. Villegas Psychiatric Report and in her testimony does she link particular acts of the parties to the DSM IV's list of criteria for the specific personality disorders. Curiously, Dr. Villegas global conclusion of both parties personality disorders was not supported by psychological tests properly administered by clinical psychologists specifically trained in the tests use and interpretation. The supposed personality disorders of the parties, considering that such diagnoses were made, could have been fully established by psychometric and neurological tests which are designed to measure specific aspects of people's intelligence, thinking, or personality.17cralaw Concededly, a copy of DSM IV, or any of the psychology textbooks, does not transform a lawyer or a judge into a professional psychologist. A judge should not substitute his own psychological assessment of the parties for that of the psychologist or the psychiatrist. However, a judge has the bounden duty to rule on what the law is, as applied to a certain set of facts. Certainly, as in all other litigations involving technical or special knowledge, a judge must first and foremost resolve the legal question based on law and jurisprudence. The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.18cralaw WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 74822 is hereby AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED. ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA WE CONCUR: ANTONIO T. CARPIO
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA A T T E S T A T I O N I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. RENATO C. CORONA C E R T I F I C A T I O N Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division. REYNATO S. PUNO Endnotes:
|
|