Neil Psychological Maria Incapacity V Petition Dr Family

I.

You are a Family Court judge and before you is a Petition for the Declaration of Nullity of Marriage (under Article 36 of the Family Code) filed by Maria against Neil. Maria claims that Neil is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage because Neil is a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler, and a mama's boy- traits that she never knew or saw when Neil was courting her. Although summoned, Neil did not answer Maria's petition and never appeared in court.

To support her petition, Maria presented three witnesses- herself, Dr. Elsie Chan, and Ambrosia. Dr. Chan testified on the psychological report on Neil that she prepared. Since Neil never acknowledged nOr responded to her invitation for interviews, her report is solely based on her interviews with Maria and the spouses' minor children. Dr. Chan concluded that Neil is suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, an ailment that she found to be already present since Neil's early adulthood and one that is grave and incurable. Maria testified on the specific instances when she found Neil drunk, with another woman, or squandering the family's resources in a casino. Ambrosia, the spouses' current household help, corroborated Maria's testimony.

On the basis of the evidence presented, will you grant the petition? (8%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER:

No.  The petition should be denied.

The psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.  It is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons;  it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological (not physical) illness. (Republic v. CA and Molina, GR. No. 108763, February 13, 1997)

In this case, the pieces of evidence presented are not sufficient to conclude that indeed Niel is suffering from a psychological incapacity (Narcissistic Personality Disorder) existing already before the marriage, incurable and serious enough to prevent Neil from performing his essential marital obligations.

Dr.  Chan's report contains mere conclusions.  Being a drunkard, a womanizer, a gambler and a mama's boy merely shows Neil's failure to perform his marital obligations.  In a number of cases, the Supreme Court did not find the existence of psychological incapacity cases where the respondents showed habitual drunkenness. (Republic v. Melgar, GR No. 139676[2006]), blatant display of infidelity and irresponsibility (Dedel v. CA), or being hooked to gambling and drugs (Republic v. Tanyag-San Jose, GR. No. 168328[2007]).

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:

Yes.  The petition should be granted.

The personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity.  It is the totality of the evidence presented which shall determine the existence of psychological incapacity (Marcos v. Marcos, GR. No. 136490, October 19, 2000).  Dr. Chan's report, corroborated by Maria's and Ambrosia's testimony, therefore, sufficiently proves Neil's psychological incapacity to assume his marital obligations.