THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 250197. September 29, 2021.]
EDWARDZON MANUZON DIVINA, petitioner, vs.ROSEMARIE ALICNA TAKAHASHI, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 250197 (Edwardzon Manuzon Divina v. Rosemarie Alicna Takahashi). — This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 dated November 9, 2018 and Resolution 3 dated October 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 108784. The CA reversed the Decision dated November 17, 2016 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City which declared the marriage of Edwardzon Manuzon Divina (petitioner) and Rosemarie Alicna Takahashi (respondent) as null and void ab initio.
Petitioner alleged that he met respondent in Japan. They became sweethearts in April 2006 and after two months, lived together as common-law partners. They got married on April 25, 2007 at the Philippine Embassy in Tokyo. They begot one child named Hiroshi Divina who was born on January 15, 2010. The early part of their cohabitation seemed ideal. Respondent voluntarily assisted petitioner to secure documents in support of his stay, to which he was granted a year long-term residence visa. Petitioner alleged that as soon as he was gainfully employed, he never faltered to share in their daily expenses. However, over time their once "ideal" cohabitation became an ordeal. 4 Petitioner complained, among others, of: (1) respondent's jealousy and prying into his mobile phone; (2) her stalking when he meets up with friends; (3) her threats to have petitioner's visa revoked; (4) her disharmonious relationship with petitioner's mother and other family members to the point that he forbade petitioner to send financial assistance to his mother; 5 (5) her failure to attend to petitioner's needs as petitioner was not allowed to sleep in their bed; (6) her immaturity in entrusting their child to her relatives in the Philippines instead to petitioner's mother; and (7) her failure to send their child any financial support in the Philippines. 6 In May 2015, petitioner saw all his personal belongings inside a plastic bag, placed outside their house like a garbage bag by respondent because she suspected that he was engaged in womanizing activities.
Due to the sorry state of their marriage, petitioner filed, in June 2015, a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity of either or both parties to comply with their essential marital obligations. Summons was issued to respondent, but the Sheriff's Return showed that the summons could not be served upon her person. Thereafter, an Alias Summons was issued and was served to the respondent thru substituted service. Respondent did not file an answer and did not participate in the entire proceedings. Meanwhile, the State, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), deputized the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Piñas City to assist in the case. 7
Trial ensued. Aside from himself, petitioner presented two witnesses to support his petition, namely: his mother Maria Corazon Divina (Maria Corazon) and psychologist Shiela Marie O. Montefalcon (Dr. Montefalcon).
Maria Corazon testified that during the occasion of her stay in Japan, she saw the immature ways of respondent. Her son would come home exhausted from work, yet he still needs to do the household chores and cook food for his family. Maria Corazon claimed that respondent resented the presence of petitioner's sibling and his wife in Japan that respondent reported them to the embassy, which caused their deportation. She also recounted that respondent verbally abused her and accused her of not taking care of her grandson. She presented respondent's text messages to her to strengthen her claim that the latter is psychologically unfit for marriage. 8
Dr. Montefalcon testified that she has been a practicing psychologist since 1999. She has a bachelor's degree as in Psychology as well as masteral degree in Clinical Psychology. Petitioner consulted with her, and she conducted clinical interviews and administered a battery of psychological tests on him. She was not able to conduct a psychological assessment on respondent since according to the courier of her letter request for interview, respondent "moved to unknown/new address as per relative." Nevertheless, Dr. Montefalcon stated that she deduced respondent's psychological profile from petitioner and Maria Corazon. She diagnosed respondent with Paranoid Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder, types of chronic mental condition in which the person's ways of thinking and perceiving situation and relating to others are dysfunctional and destructive. Respondent was always suspicious and jealous due to her personality disorder and she has a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, unhealthy need for admiration, and lacked empathy due to her being a narcissist. Dr. Montefalcon alleged that reconciliation is impossible and totally unhealthy as it will only cause continuous mental and emotional distress and suffering to both parties. She found respondent's psychological incapacity as grave, severe, incurable, and permanently ingrained in her personality structure. This psychological incapacity existed prior to her marriage but overtly manifested only after the celebration of marriage. There was no medicine for her disorder. 9
Dr. Montefalcon also testified that the historical antecedence that contributed to the development of respondent's personality disorders is her upbringing, family relationship, and childhood experiences. Respondent did not receive a nurturing care from both of her parents since childhood. Her father left her when she was a baby while her mother devoted much time to her work disregarding that she also has children to attend to. Unreliable parenting style is therefore the root cause of respondent's pathological personality pattern. In contrast, Dr. Montefalcon asserted that petitioner has maintained a balance ego integration and healthy psychological state and is not manifesting any psychopathological trait nor any underlying personality disorder which could have affected his manner of adequately fulfilling his roles as a husband and adult individual. Thus, she recommended that the marriage between petitioner and responded be declared null and void on account of respondent's psychological incapacity. 10
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
In its Decision dated November 17, 2016, the RTC granted the petition. The dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered, as follows:
1.) Declaring the marriage contracted by petitioner EDWARDZON MANUZON DIVINA (The parties' Marriage Contract, Exhibit "A" has registry no. 2007-3921220) and respondent ROSEMARIE ALICNA TAKAHASHI solemnized on April 25, 2007 by Consul Felipe F. Cariño III at the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo and all its effects under the law, as NULL AD VOID AB INITIO conformably with Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended or by virtue of said respondent's psychological incapacity.
2.) Directing the Branch Clerk of Court to enter this judgment upon its finality in the Book of Entry of Judgment and to issue an Entry of Judgment and other certifications in accordance thereto; and,
3.) Directing the Local Civil Registrar of Las Piñas City where this Court is situated and the Philippine Statistics Authority, Quezon City (formerly, National Statistics Office) to cause the registration of the Entry of Judgment granting the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage into the marriage records of the parties in their respective marriage registers and to cancel from their Registries of Book of Marriages the said marriage between the herein petitioner and respondent. Upon compliance, a Decree of Nullity of Marriage shall be issued. The Local Civil Registry Las Piñas City and the Philippine Statistics Authority are hereby directed to cause the registration of the same into their Marriage Registries.
The respondent is also encouraged to equally share in their child's expenses and enjoined from prohibiting the petitioner from seeing their child, Hiroshi.
Further, the property regime of the parties is hereby TERMINATED and/or DISSOLVED. Whatever property/assets that parties may acquire in the future shall be considered as their separate or exclusive property. The respondent is also disqualified from inheriting from petitioner both by testate and intestate succession.
In addition, the petitioner shall furnish the Embassy of the Philippines in Tokyo, a copy of the Decision for its proper registration in the parties' marriage contract.
Furnish copies of this Decision to the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the Prosecutor of Las Piñas City, the Local Civil Registrar Las Piñas City, the petitioner and his counsel and the respondent at her last known address.
SO ORDERED. 11 (Emphasis in the original)
The RTC gave great weight and credence to the Psychological Evaluation Report of Dr. Montefalcon. It declared that the report was not one-sided since being an expert in the field of Psychology for many years, Dr. Montefalcon is aware of the unique manifestation/features of different kinds of personality disorders and knows how to validate the information given by the petitioner. It noted that respondent was given an opportunity to present her side of the story, but she did not do so. It declared that the marriage of the parties could not be salvaged because respondent is totally incapacitated to perform her duties. 12
The OSG moved for reconsideration which the RTC denied in its Order 13 dated March 7, 2017. The OSG appealed to the CA.
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
In its assailed Decision, the CA granted the appeal and reversed the RTC. It ruled that there is insufficient basis to hold respondent as psychologically incapacitated to discharge the duties expected of a wife. The totality of evidence was clearly wanting.
The CA agreed with the OSG that Dr. Montefalcon concluded that respondent suffered from psychological incapacity on the mere say-so of petitioner and his mother. Citing relevant case law, the CA noted that to make conclusions and generalizations on a spouse's psychological condition based on the information fed by one side, as in the case at bar, is not different from admitting hearsay evidence as proof of the truthfulness of the content of such evidence. The CA further held that petitioner himself declared that in the beginning of their cohabitation, their marriage seemed ideal and that after three years respondent began threatening him when he was given a three year visa. The issue started when he was given a visa. Petitioner's depiction of his marriage, the issue on the visa, and the text messages sent by respondent to petitioner's mother, reflected more of respondent's sentiments against her mother-in-law, and not a serious inability on her part to perform her marital obligations. 14
Further, the CA observed an inconsistency between the insight reflected on the Psychological Report and the declaration that respondent was psychologically incapacitated. The Report stated that, "[i]n the course of their relationship, respondent showed care and support to him (referring to the petitioner) which he had been so grateful of. The petitioner was madly in love with respondent and was willing to give everything she asks and demands." Hence, the CA dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. 15
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration, but the CA denied it in its assailed Resolution. Hence, petitioner filed this present petition for review under Rule 45.
Arguments of the Petitioner
Petitioner alleged that for purposes of establishing the psychological incapacity of a spouse, it is not required that a physician conduct an actual medical examination of the person concerned. It is enough that the totality of evidence is strong to sustain the finding of psychological incapacity. Petitioner insisted that the testimonial and documentary evidence he presented as well as his corroborative witness and the findings of Dr. Montefalcon sufficiently comply with the totality of evidence rule. That the finding of psychological incapacity prescinded from the information that petitioner and his mother gave Dr. Montefalcon does not immediately invalidate the latter's Psychological Report. 16
As regards the hostile text messages of respondent to Maria Corazon, petitioner averred that this emanated from respondent's disinclination to allow him to extend financial support to his mother. This cannot be dismissed as a mere say so since his mother presented the printed screen shots of the text messages in court. With respect to the alleged inconsistency between the Psychological Report and petitioner's claim of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, petitioner explained that there was no contradiction because the part quoted by the CA is a prefatory statement. The Psychological Report chronologically narrated the circumstances reflecting the evolution of parties' relationship. That at the onset of their relationship, respondent cared and supported petitioner, but her immature ways belatedly unfolded in the course of their marital cohabitation. 17 Petitioner thus prayed for the reinstatement of the RTC's Decision.
Arguments of the OSG
In its Comment, the OSG argued that although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist, there is nevertheless a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging such disorder. Dr. Montefalcon's Psychological Report was made solely on the basis of petitioner's self-serving allegation, hence it is speculative and inconclusive. Except for the testimonies of the petitioner and his biased witnesses, no other evidence — testimonial or documentary, that is, personal papers like letters and diaries that might give account to respondent's character, medical records, character accounts from people of long close contacts with respondent, were presented to support petitioner's allegations and Dr. Montefalcon's finding that respondent is paranoid and narcissistic. There was also no mention of the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity. Accordingly, the OSG prayed that the CA's Decision be affirmed in toto. 18
Issue
The issue in this case is whether the CA erred in reversing the RTC's declaration of nullity of marriage between petitioner and respondent.
Ruling of the Court
The petition is bereft of merit.
Psychological incapacity to comply with the essential marital obligations is one of the grounds for declaration of nullity of marriage under the Family Code. Article 36 reads:
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.
The Court En Banc in Tan-Andal v. Andal19(Tan-Andal) declared that "psychological incapacity consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one's essential marital obligations due to psychic issues. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified; hence, expert opinion is not required."
In the same case, the Court En Banc modified the off-repeated guidelines 20 set in Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Molina21(Molina) for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The modifications may be summarized as follows:
1. The plaintiff-spouse must prove his/her case by clear and convincing evidence, which is a quantum of proof that requires more than preponderance of evidence but less than proof of beyond reasonable doubt.
2. Psychological incapacity is not only a mental capacity nor only a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There may now be proof of the durable aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifest itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him/her to understand and to comply with his/her essential marital obligations. Proof of these aspects of personality may be given by ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage and who may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. There is no more need to label a person as mentally disordered just to obtain a decree of nullity.
3. A party to the nullity case is still required to prove juridical antecedence because it is an explicit requirement of the law. The incapacity must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage even if such incapacity manifest only after its solemnization.
4. The incapacity is incurable not in the medical sense but in the legal sense — meaning the incapacity is so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result of the union would be inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. Psychological incapacity is not something to be healed or cured.
5. The incapacity must be grave, not in the sense that it must be shown to be a serious or dangerous illness, but that "mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts" are excluded. The psychological incapacity cannot be mere "refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will." The incapacity is caused by a genuinely psychic cause.
6. The essential marital obligations are 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.
7. Canonical decisions are merely persuasive and not binding on secular courts. They are only to serve as evidence of the nullity of the marriage but ultimately the elements of nullity under Article 36 must still be made by the judge. 22
Thus, Tan-Andal teaches that "as an explicit requirement of the law, the psychological incapacity must be shown to have been in existence at the time of the celebration of marriage and is caused by a durable aspect of one's personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. To prove psychological incapacity, a party must present clear and convincing evidence of its existence." 23
Tested using the foregoing parameters, petitioner, in this case, failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to comply with her essential marital obligations. The testimonies of petitioner, his mother, and Dr. Montefalcon failed to show the cause or juridical antecedence of respondent's alleged psychological incapacity.
At the outset, the Court shall consider the expert opinion of Dr. Montefalcon since the case was filed during the effectivity of Molina. 24 The RTC relied heavily on her Psychological Report finding that respondent has Paranoid Personality Disorder (PPD) and Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD). She stated that respondent is a self-focused person. Respondent thinks highly of herself, is very selfish, and a self-absorbed person, indicative of being a narcissist. Her PPD is shown by her inability to trust anyone. 25 Dr. Montefalcon traced respondent's personality disorders from the unreliable parenting styles of the significant figures around her which greatly affected her perceptions of herself and her environment in general. Particularly, respondent did not receive a nurturing care from both her parents. Her father left for another woman, hence she developed basic distrust and hostility towards him as well as became paranoid and suspicious on the fidelity of an intimate relationship or motives of another person. At a young age, respondent learned to think of her own welfare because of the neglect she received, thus her decisions centered on her own without thinking of other's good. 26
The above findings of Dr. Montefalcon seem to explain the alleged PPD and NPD of respondent. However, the source/basis of her conclusions is solely the information given by petitioner and his mother. While this per se is not a cause to invalidate her expert opinion, since it is well-settled that personal examination of the alleged psychologically incapacitated spouse is not required for a declaration of nullity of marriage, 27 it was not established that petitioner or his mother was competent and credible source of respondent's alleged childhood trauma. In Republic v. Javier, 28 the Court disagreed with the CA's finding that the wife was psychologically incapacitated due to lack of independent evidence establishing the root cause of such incapacity. There, the information was provided by the husband and a close friend of the spouses, who was even allegedly a regular confidant of the wife. The Court noted that:
The basis of Dr. Adamos' findings on the psychological incapacity of Michelle was the information provided by Martin and Jose Vicente. Jose Vicente was a close friend of the respondents, having introduced them to each other before their marriage. Jose Vicente was also allegedly a regular confidant of Michelle.
While it is true that Michelle was not personally examined or evaluated for purposes of the psychological report, the trial court was incorrect in ruling that Dr. Adamos' findings were based solely on the interview with Martin. Even if that were the case, the findings of the psychologist are not immediately invalidated for this reason alone. Because a marriage necessarily involves only two persons, the spouse who witnessed the other spouse's behavior may "validly relay" the pattern of behavior to the psychologist.
This notwithstanding, the Court disagrees with the CA's findings that Michelle was psychologically incapacitated. We cannot absolutely rely on the Psychological Impression Report on Michelle. There were no other independent evidence establishing the root cause or juridical antecedence of Michelle's alleged psychological incapacity. While this Court cannot discount their first-hand observations, it is highly unlikely that they were able to paint Dr. Adamos a complete picture of Michelle's family and childhood history. The records do not show that Michelle and Jose Vicente were childhood friends, while Martin, on the other hand, was introduced to Michelle during their adulthood. Either Martin or Jose Vicente, as third persons outside the family of Michelle, could not have known about her childhood, how she was raised, and the dysfunctional nature of her family. Without a credible source of her supposed childhood trauma, Dr. Adamos was not equipped with enough information from which he may reasonably conclude that Michelle is suffering from a chronic and persistent disorder that is grave and incurable.29 (Emphasis supplied)
Here, there is no evidence confirming the veracity of the background information provided by petitioner as regards the family history and upbringing of respondent. Reiterating the second guideline in Tan-Andal, the spouse's personality structure may be proven by ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before they contracted marriage and who may testify on the behaviors that they consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. This is wanting in this case. Both petitioner and his mother did not testify on the behavior of respondent prior to the marriage. More, petitioner himself stated that initially his marriage with respondent was going well and the issue between them only started when he was granted a three-year visa. 30 Thus, the alleged psychological incapacity of respondent may be traced during this time/period and not at the time of the celebration of marriage. It must be stressed that the distinguishing characteristic of a declaration of nullity of marriage vis-à-vis divorce is the former's requirement that the incapacity of either or both spouses should exist at the time of marriage, and not after.
Moreover, the narrative of petitioner and his mother regarding the immature ways, jealousy, and domineering acts of respondent fall short of proving the gravity and incurability in the medical sense required in Tan-Andal. The Psychological Report itself noted that respondent in the course of their relationship showed care and support to petitioner. 31 While petitioner argued that this is only during the early stage of their marriage, this militates against a finding that respondent's incapacity is so enduring and persistent, and that the spouses' personality structure is so incompatible and antagonistic. The Court does not discount the fact that respondent is at odds with her mother-in-law and petitioner's family, that she forbade petitioner to extend financial assistance to them. However, this alone could not warrant a declaration of psychological incapacity in her part. If so, then countless of marriages would be declared void by the mere expedient of showing the failure of one spouse to have a harmonious relationship with his/her in-laws.
All told, the CA did not err in reversing the ruling of the RTC. The totality of evidence did not establish the gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability in the medical sense of respondent's supposed psychological incapacity.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated November 9, 2018 and the Resolution dated October 24, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 108784 are AFFIRMED. DETACa
SO ORDERED." (Leonen, J., on official leave.)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 11-19.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. with the concurrence of Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Pablito A. Perez; id. at 28-37.
3.Id. at 24-26.
4.Id. at 40.
5.Id. at 2.
6.Id. at 42.
7.Id. at 38-39.
8.Id. at 29-30.
9.Id. at 43-45.
10.Id. at 53-55.
11.Id. at 56-57.
12.Id. at 55-56.
13.Id. at 72-76.
14.Id. at 33-36.
15.Id. at 36.
16.Id. at 15.
17.Id. at 17-19.
18.Id. at 159-165.
19. G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.
20. (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. x x x
(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. x x x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at "the time of the celebration" of the marriage. x x x
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. x x x
(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. x x x
(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. 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. x x x
21. 335 Phil. 664 (1997).
22.Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.
23.Id.
24.Id.
25.Rollo, p. 45.
26.Id. at 54.
27.Tan-Andal v. Andal, supra note 22, citing Marcos v. Marcos, 397 Phil. 840 (2000).
28. 830 Phil. 213 (2018). Note that the Court, in this case, declared the marriage between the parties null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity of the husband and not the wife since the incapacity of the latter was not proven. In contrast, the totality of evidence showed that the husband is incapacitated to comply with his essential marital obligations. Particularly, he was diagnosed to have a Narcissistic Personality Disorder rooted in the traumatic experiences during his childhood, having grown up around a violent father who was abusive of his mother. This adversely affected the husband (petitioner) in such a manner that he formed unrealistic values and standards on his own marriage and proposed unconventional sexual practices.
29.Id. at 222-223; see also Castillo v. Republic, 805 Phil. 209 (2017), where the Court did not give credence to the Psychological Report on the husband's personality disorder because of the lack of corroborative witness and evidence on his upbringing and family history.
30.Rollo, p. 35.
31.Id. at 36.