SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254891. September 19, 2022-2021.]
LORENZ KENNETTE MERCADO, petitioner, vs.PRISCILA NUKE-MERCADO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 19, 2022which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254891 (LORENZ KENNETTE MERCADO, petitioner, v. PRISCILA NUKE-MERCADO, respondent). — This Court resolves a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 assailing the Decision 2 and Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals, which upheld the Regional Trial Court Decision 4 dismissing a Petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage due to insufficiency of evidence.
Lorenz Kennette Mercado (Lorenz) met Priscila 5 Nuke-Mercado (Priscila) at AMA Computer College, East Rizal where they were both students. Lorenz's initial impression was that Priscila was a shy person. During the first quarter of 1998, Priscila, who was living with depression, stopped attending classes. In June 1998, Lorenz noticed that Priscila's behavior had changed, which Priscila's mother explained was a side effect of her medication. In July 1998, Priscila got pregnant and they were married on December 30, 1998 in Lumban, Laguna. They had two children. 6
In 2004, the family immigrated to Nigeria, but in 2006, their eldest daughter moved back to the Philippines to study. 7
In 2007, the family went back to the Philippines for a brief vacation, but Priscila refused to return to Nigeria as she started to have behavioral problems again. Thus, only Lorenz returned to Nigeria. Priscila handled the money that Lorenz would send, but she later became financially irresponsible, leading to disagreements and major arguments. 8
In 2008, Priscila had a nervous breakdown and was brought to a psychiatrist for medication. She also showed signs of paranoia and unusual behavior. In 2012, she showed signs of depression, and she stopped paying tuition fees and credit card fees, as well as buying groceries. Lorenz and Priscila tried couple's counseling, but this did not work. 9
On February 8, 2018, Lorenz filed before the Regional Trial Court a Petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage, grounded on the psychological incapacity of both Lorenz and Priscila to perform essential marital obligations. He attached as evidence, among others, the clinical evaluation from a psychologist, Dr. Maria Theresa Oba Del Rosario (Dr. Del Rosario), who assessed Lorenz to have narcissistic personality disorder, and Priscila, dependent personality disorder. 10
Priscila did not file an answer despite summons. The Office of the Solicitor General deputized the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasig City to enter its appearance on behalf of the Republic to determine the possibility of collusion. The Office of the City Prosecutor manifested that there was no collusion. 11
On May 27, 2019, the Regional Trial Court rendered a Decision 12 denying the Petition for insufficiency of evidence. It likewise denied Lorenz's Motion for Reconsideration in a July 10, 2019 Order. 13
Lorenz appealed before the Court of Appeals. He argued that he adduced evidence that overwhelmingly proved that he and Priscila had psychological disorders that were grave, judicially antecedent, and incurable as to render them both incapable of performing their essential marital obligations. 14
On September 30, 2020, the Court of Appeals rendered a Decision 15 affirming the trial court's ruling. Citing Republic v. Molina, 16 the Court of Appeals concluded that based on the totality of evidence presented, the Petition was "more of a case of incompatibility and unmet expectations which are not grounds to declare a marriage null and void." 17
The Court of Appeals found that Dr. Del Rosario's diagnosis that Lorenz "'has manifested . . . his goal-driven kind of personality to the point that he is even willing to sacrifice interpersonal relations in favor of his success and achievements' failed to show how this Narcissistic Personality Disorder disabled him from performing his marital obligations." 18 It also found that while Priscila had "Dependent Personality Disorder as she shows heavy reliance on other people manifested by a helpless attitude wherein she would often think of herself as worthless[,]" the diagnosis "did not explain the incapacitating nature of the alleged disorder, and neither did it show that [Priscila] was really incapable of fulfilling her duties due to some incapacity of a psychological, not physical, nature." 19
The Court of Appeals likewise found that while Dr. Del Rosario favorably recommended the nullity of the marriage, she nonetheless concluded that "the respective personality disorders of [Lorenz] and [Priscila] '[are] a good combination for [the] couple, and with proper psychotherapy, it can increase their coping mechanism and formulate good insight.' Thus, the alleged psychological incapacity of the parties is curable and not permanent." 20
Lorenz moved for reconsideration, but his Motion was denied by the Court of Appeals in a December 15, 2020 Resolution. 21 Hence, Lorenz filed the Petition for Review on Certiorari22 before this Court.
Petitioner alleges that the evidence he presented, "which include[s] a battery of tests administered and evaluations on both parties as well as the interviews on his witnesses conducted by the Clinical Psychologist; the psychological report which the Clinical Psychologist prepared; and the respective testimonies of Petitioner, Petitioner's mother, Bernadette Mercado, and the Clinical Psychologist herself[,]" 23 proves that both he and respondent were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital duties. 24
The sole issue in this case is whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court's Decision that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that both petitioner Lorenz Kennette Mercado and respondent Priscila Nuke-Mercado were psychologically incapacitated to fulfill their marital duties.
On May 11, 2021, this Court promulgated Tan-Andal v. Andal, 25 which states:
[T]his Court now categorically abandons the second Molina guideline. Psychological incapacity is neither a mental incapacity nor a personality disorder that must be proven through expert opinion. There must be proof, however, of the durable or enduring aspects of a person's personality, called "personality structure," which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. The spouse's personality structure must make it impossible for him or her to understand and, more important, to comply with his or her essential marital obligations.
Proof of these aspects of personality need not be given by an expert. Ordinary witnesses who have been present in the life of the spouses before the latter contracted marriage may testify on behaviors that they have consistently observed from the supposedly incapacitated spouse. From there, the judge will decide if these behaviors are indicative of a true and serious incapacity to assume the essential marital obligations. 26
Indeed, as the clinical psychologist found in this case:
[T]his witness finds the Petitioner as psychologically incapacitated to assume the essential marital obligations, as he is suffering from a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. This Personality Disorder is characterized by a grandiose sense of self-importance that may be manifested in the form of having a sense of entitlement and control of others especially those who are very important to him; fantasy of unlimited success, power, brilliance or ideal love; understanding from others especially those whom he treasures; lack of empathy[;] requiring others, especially those whom he treasures, to understand him and show him that he is loved and appreciated by demanding others to do things they expect them to do. This witness testified that this kind of psychological disorder of the Petitioner is grave and incurable, already embedded in him by virtue of his parents being strict and disciplinarian.
On the other hand, this witness finds the Respondent as having a Dependent Personality Disorder, a state she developed during their childhood years since she was left by her mother with her father who miserably failed to give her the love, support and affection needed by any child. This disorder is characterized by heavy reliance, helpless attitude wherein the person would often think of himself [sic] as worthless, needing constant attention from others and reliance on others most of the time for empowerment and direction. 27 (Citations omitted)
In light of the more recent jurisprudence on psychological incapacity, it may be more prudent for this Court to remand this case to the trial court for it to reexamine the evidence presented based on the new guidelines stated in Tan-Andal. In an earlier case, this Court has already contemplated the "unintended consequences" of Republic v. Molina: 28
The unintended consequences of Molina, however, 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 foundation of their families, our basic social institutions. Far from what was intended by the Court, Molina has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it. Wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage. 29
Based on the testimonies in this case, sustaining the marriage bond based on Molina's rigid guidelines might do more harm than good. Petitioner, in particular, testified:
Q What made you decide to file this petition?
A When my daughters already [sic] complaining that they don't have anything to eat, they don't have enough money to go to school and what the need area [sic] not being provided anymore.
Q Is that sufficient enough for you to just leave your wife and separate from her?
A I'm looking after my kids, I want them to grow up with the right attitude towards everything, not just money but also with their decisions.
Q Were the children living alone with their mother at that time when you were working in Nigeria?
A They were living with their mother . . . not alone. At times, we have house help, at times, we have maybe my brother-in-law and recently, we were staying in the 3rd floor of my parent's house. 30
Petitioner's mother also testified:
Q So during the time that the Respondent was with you either living with your son, and after your son when to Nigeria or Africa to work there, how would you describe these attacks or these episodes?
A Okay, there are different manifestations, so I can go on and on to . . .
Q Could you please specify what are these manifestations?
A I can talk about the very latest episode or attack that she had when my son was already in Africa, this is the very latest one that happened this year, and my son would normally, of course, send them their monthly allowance, and I think, for some reasons, she must have spent the money even during the first week of the month, so I didn't know about it but it was only their maid who told me that my grandchildren didn't have anything to eat, and the mother didn't care whether she was going to the grocery or going to the market to buy food for the children. . . .
Q Did these manifestations harm anybody particularly the children?
A She has not come to a violent state yet, she can be verbally abusive and, I think that's what happened the last time, that's why my grandchildren had to call on us to say that they wanted to [stay] with us and they don't want to stay with their mother anymore. I think, that was the time when the eldest of my granddaughters was the receiving end of all the verbal abuses that she said. 31
Thus, in light of Tan-Andal, and to further strengthen the sanctity of marriage by putting an end to stillborn unions, a reexamination of the evidence in this case is in order.
FOR THIS REASON, this case is remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, Branch 159 for the reexamination of evidence in Civil Case No. R-PSG-18-00361-CV based on the new guidelines under Tan-Andal v. Andal, G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021.
SO ORDERED." (Lopez, M., J., on official business)
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 12-66.
2. Id. at 67-85. The September 30, 2020 Decision was penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina C. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon of the Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3. Id. at 86-87. The December 15, 2020 Resolution was penned by Associate Justice Fernanda Lampas Peralta and concurred in by Associate Justices Nina C. Antonio-Valenzuela and Tita Marilyn B. Payoyo-Villordon of the Former Second Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
4. Id. at 155-168. The May 27, 2019 Decision was penned by Assisting Judge Carmencita V.P. Lacandazo Logan of Branch 159, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
5. Priscila is sometimes spelled as "Priscilla" in the rollo.
6. Rollo, pp. 68 and 161.
7. Id. at 69.
8. Id.
9. Id.
10. Id.
11. Id.
12. Id. at 155-168.
13. Id. at 185-194. The Order was penned by Assisting Judge Carmencita V.P. Lacandazo Logan of Branch 159, Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
14. Id. at 72.
15. Id. at 67-85.
16. 335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
17. Rollo, p. 83.
18. Id. at 80.
19. Id.
20. Id. at 81.
21. Id. at 86-87.
22. Id. at 12-66.
23. Id. at 24.
24. Id.
25. G.R. No. 196359, May 11, 2021, <https://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/20821/> [Per J. Leonen, En Banc].
26. Id. at 31-32.
27. Rollo, p. 159.
28. 335 Phil. 664 (1997) [Per J. Panganiban, En Banc].
29. Ngo-Te v. Yu Te, 598 Phil. 666, 696 (2009) [Per J. Nachura, Third Division].
30. Rollo, p. 52, citing TSN, December 4, 2018, pp. 13-14.
31. Id. at 56-57, citing TSN, September 11, 2018, pp. 10-12.