SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 232550. November 14, 2018.]
ROSEMARIE CRUZ, petitioner, vs.DANNY ONG CHUA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 14 November 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 232550 (Rosemarie Cruz v. Danny Ong Chua)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the September 22, 2016 Decision 2 and the May 30, 2017 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 103200 for failure of petitioner Rosemarie Cruz (petitioner) to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in upholding the denial of the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage to respondent Danny Ong Chua (respondent) on the ground of psychological incapacity.
Psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify the marriage under Article 36 4 of the Family Code, 5 as amended, should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. 6 It must be characterized by: (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage; (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage; and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved. 7 As correctly ruled by the CA, the totality of the evidence in this case failed to show that respondent's Dissocial Personality Disorder, as diagnosed by the expert witness, was tantamount to psychological incapacity that renders him unable to perform the essential marital obligations, 8 there being a dearth of evidence to establish its gravity, incurability, and juridical antecedence. Thus, absent sufficient evidence establishing psychological incapacity within the context of Article 36, the Court is compelled to uphold the marriage between the parties. 9 CAIHTE
SO ORDERED." (REYES, J., JR., J., designated Additional Member per Special Order No. 2587 dated August 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 13-45.
2.Id. at 49-61. Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales with Associate Justices Florito S. Macalino and Rodil V. Zalameda, concurring.
3.Id. at 72-73.
4. Article 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.
5. Executive Order No. 209 entitled "THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES" (August 3, 1988).
6. See Republic v. Romero II, 781 Phil. 737, 746 (2016).
7. See Lontoc-Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201988, October 11, 2017.
8. See rollo, p. 60.
9.Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 805 Phil. 978, 994 (2017).