THIRD DIVISION
[G.R. No. 228115. March 29, 2017.]
MARIO JOSELITO M. JUCO, petitioner,vs. FLORENCIA Y. JUCO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedMarch 29, 2017, which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 228115 (MARIO JOSELITO M. JUCO, Petitioner v. FLORENCIA Y. JUCO, Respondent). — Petitioner's motion for an extension of fifteen (15) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari is GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
The parties met in 1982 at the Manila Doctor's Hospital where the petitioner was then a medical intern and the respondent a staff nurse. They eventually got married on September 11, 1985. Their union had three children. HTcADC
On March 4, 2009, he brought this action for the declaration of the nullity of their marriage in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Parañaque City on the ground of psychological incapacity on her part. He averred that their marriage had started well, with their financial condition improving after he had become a consultant at the Manila Doctor's Hospital; that their first-born child had been born in 1987, but she had suffered a miscarriage of their second child; that after losing their second child, they had decided on her becoming a full-time housewife; that she had eventually started to spend more time with her friends than with him and their children, going home late at night and leaving the children with their caretaker; that she had then showed no concern for him; and that they had not anymore engaged in sexual intimacy thereafter. His allegations were confirmed by the couple's family driver.
The respondent countered that she had been a hands-on mother to their children despite their having had several househelpers; that she had discovered her husband's womanizing on two separate occasions; and that he had told her that he was already in love with another woman whom he had met in one of his foreign trips.
Prof. Antero V. Arias, Jr., a certified assessment psychologist, testified as an expert witness for the petitioner. Prof. Arias declared that the respondent had suffered from histrionic personality disorder that incapacitated her from discharging her essential marital obligations.
Dr. Cecilia C. Villegas, a licensed physician and psychiatrist, was the respondent's expert witness. Dr. Villegas found that the respondent had only suffered from depression within the normal range, and had not been psychologically incapacitated considering that she had been capable of fulfilling her marital obligations.
Another expert witness presented by the respondent, Ma. Francianina G. Sanchez, a clinical psychologist, made findings similar to those of Dr. Villegas.
On January 6, 2014, the RTC rendered its decision declaring the marriage of the parties void ab initio because of the psychological incapacity of the respondent, as confirmed by the psychological evaluation report of Prof. Arias. 1
The respondent moved for partial reconsideration, but the RTC denied her motion. 2
On appeal by the respondent, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, and dismissed the petition for declaration of the nullity of the marriage through its decision promulgated on March 17, 2016. 3 The CA observed that the respondent's disorder could not be characterized as permanent, grave and incurable based merely on the psychological evaluation report and testimony of Prof Arias; that even assuming that the disorder was grave, the psychological evaluation report did not show that such disorder predated the time of marriage; that the testimony of the couple's driver had no probative value because he had served the couple only since 2005, and most of the children were already of age; and that the parties did not appear to be psychologically incapacitated to discharge their essential marital obligations, leaving no valid reason to sever their marital union. 4
The petitioner moved for reconsideration, but his motion was denied. 5
Hence, this appeal, whereby the petitioner contends that the CA erred in ruling out the credibility of Prof. Arias, Jr. as an expert witness; that the findings of fact of the RTC should instead be given full faith and credit in the absence of a showing of misinterpretation of material facts or grave abuse of discretion; and that he had sufficiently established the concurrence of juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability of the respondent's psychological incapacity. CAIHTE
After a judicious review of the records, the Court DENIES the petition for review on certiorari for failure of the petitioner to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in dismissing his petition for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage.
The CA correctly ruled that the psychological evaluation report of Prof. Arias did not sufficiently show how the respondent's alleged psychological incapacity was characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability.
Indeed, for psychological incapacity to be considered a ground for the nullity of marriage, the disorder must be existing at the time of the celebration of marriage. 6 Yet, that showing was not made herein. Prof. Arias concluded that the respondent's disorder had stemmed from her early experiences in her life based solely on the limited information he had obtained from the petitioner and his brief conversation with the respondent over the telephone. Prof. Arias did not describe her personal or family background. Moreover, the fact that the petitioner had himself declared that their marriage had started well but had subsequently turned sour through the years negated Prof. Arias' conclusion that the incapacity had been existing at the time of marriage. aScITE
WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated on March 17, 2016; DISMISSES the petition for the declaration of the nullity of the marriage of the parties; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 54-75; penned by Presiding Judge Jaime M. Guray.
2.Id. at 77-78.
3.Id. at 36-49; penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justice Sesinando E. Villon and Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales concurring.
4.Id. at 43-48.
5.Id. at 51-52.
6.Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, January 14, 2015, 745 SCRA 512, 553.