SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242572. December 5, 2018.]
WILFREDO E. SUMBILLO, REPRESENTED BY ELENA S. SINORO, petitioner,vs. FLORDELIZA C. SUMBILLO AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 05 December 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242572 (Wilfredo E. Sumbillo, represented by Elena S. Sinoro v. Flordeliza C. Sumbillo and the Republic of the Philippines)
After a judicious study of the case, the Court resolves to DENY the instant petition 1 and AFFIRM the May 24, 2018 Decision 2 and the August 31, 2018 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CEB CV No. 05265 for failure of petitioner Wilfredo E. Sumbillo, represented by Elena S. Sinoro (petitioner), to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in reversing and setting aside the July 11, 2011 Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 32 (RTC) in Civil Case No. 07-29394 and dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage.
Psychological incapacity as a ground to nullify the marriage under Article 36 5 of the Family Code, 6 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 marriage. 7 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. 8 As correctly ruled by the CA, the totality of the evidence in this case failed to show that respondent Flordeliza C. Sumbillo's Borderline Personality Disorder, as diagnosed by the expert witness, was tantamount to psychological incapacity that renders her unable to perform the essential marital obligations, 9 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 of the Family Code, the Court is compelled to uphold the marriage between the parties. 10
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1 Rollo, pp. 10-36.
2. Id. at 40-49. Penned by Associate Justice Geraldine C. Fiel-Macaraig with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Louis P. Acosta, concurring.
3. Id. at 50-55. Penned by Associate Justice Louis P. Acosta with Associate Justices Pamela Ann Abella Maxino and Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap, concurring.
4. Id. at 82-96. Penned by Presiding Judge Globert J. Justalero.
5. 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.
6. Executive Order No. 209 entitled "THE FAMILY CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES" (August 3, 1988).
7. See Republic v. Romero II, 781 Phil. 737, 746 (2016).
8. See Lontoc-Cruz v. Cruz, G.R. No. 201988, October 11, 2017.
9. See rollo, p. 48.
10. Del Rosario v. Del Rosario, 805 Phil. 978, 994 (2017).