Suazo v. Suazo (2010)

SUAZO V. SUAZO

March 12, 2010

Ponente: Justice Brion

PARTIES:

- Petitioner: Jocelyn M. Suazo

- Respondent: Angelito Suazo and Republic of the Philippines

·       28 years old; reached 3^rd year of HS

·       Part-time tricycle driver

·       Eldest among 4 siblings; father (machine operator) – described as an alcoholic and womanizer; mother (sales agent) – known to be involved in an illicit relationship

·       Familial relationship described to be stormy, chaotic

FACTS:

·       June 1985 – Jocelyn and Angelito met when they were 16 (Laguna)

·       March 3, 1986 – Jocelyn and Angelito’s marriage; officiated in a ceremony officiated by the Mayor of Biñan

·       Parties stopped school; Jocelyn took odd jobs as a household help for Angelito’s relatives – Angelito refused to work and was drunk most of the time

·       Angelito’s refusal to work was often the reason for the spouses’ violent quarrels

·       July 1987 – Jocelyn left Angelito (after 1 year and 4 months together) à Angelito is now with another woman and they have a child

·       October 8, 1997 – Jocelyn filed with the RTC Pasay a PETITION FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (Article 36) after 10 years from their separation. Jocelyn claims:

o   Angelito was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential requirements of the marriage.

o   Their relationship has been marred with bitter quarrels, causing her unbearable physical and emotional pains because Angelito inflicted physical injuries during their quarrels

o   Main reason for their quarrel is Angelito’s refusal to work, excessive drinking

o   Psychological incapacity of Angelito started from the time of their marriage and appears to be continues, permanent and incurable.

·       Angelito did not file for an answer; trial court did not find any collusion between parties. Angelito did not submit himself to a psychological examination.

·       Psychologist Dr. Nedy Tayag testified declaring Angelito is suffering from anti-social personality disorder that is serious and appears to be incurable.

·       In Jocelyn’s testimony: Angelito showed kindness during courtship.

o   Based on: physical abuses, vices (alcohol and gambling)

o   How was it shown during the marriage: physical abuses

o   How did it manifest in the marriage: they did not have children

·       OSG opposed the petition: psychologist failed to examine and test Angelito, what was said about him was based on hearsay

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

1. RTC annulled the marriage:

·       Some admitted grounds: immaturity, lack of effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, excessive dependence on parents, habitual alcoholism

·       Jocelyn failed to establish a harmonious life with Angelito (based on Dr. Tayag’s testimony)

·       Angelito was irresponsible, immature, jobless, a gambler, drunkard and a wife beater

·       Jocelyn suffered from maltreatment and worked odd jobs to provide for the family;

·       Jocelyn said she was forced only to said marriage by relatives

- Application of principles and requisites from previous cases:

·       In Santos v. CA: found it to be grave and incurable.

·       Republic v. CA Molina: testimony of Dr. Nedy Tayag attesting to the psychological incapacity

2. COURT OF APPEALS

·       Reversed RTC decision.

·       Marcos v. Marcos: Physical exam is not required; it is necessary to show that there are manifestations of a deeper psychological malaise that was clinically or medically identified.

·       SC adopted totality of evidence approach à allows the fact of psychological incapacity to be drawn from evidence that medically or clinically identify the root causes of the illness.

o   IN THIS CASE: Only Jocelyn gave first hand testimony on the behavior

o   The evidence of Dr. Tayag was anecdotal at best (only because of causes like immaturity or irresponsibility which are NOT equivalent to psychological incapacity)

·       Pesca v. Pesca: The element of PERMANANCE or INCURABILITY is one defining characteristic of psychological incapacity.

o   IN THIS CASE: Permanence and incurability was not met; Angelito was still able to contract another marriage and have children with the other

ISSUE: W/N there is basis to nullify Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito under Article 36 of the Family Code.

HOLDING/RATIONALE:

·       Petition is DEVOID of merit.

·       Mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts cannot be accepted as root causes; illness must be shown as downright capacity or inability.

·       Personal examination by a physician/psychologist is not a sine qua non condition (Marcos v. Marcos)

·       No longer necessary to introduce expert opinion if the TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE shows that psychological incapacity exists, and its gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability can be duly established.

·       Finds Jocelyn’s evidence insufficient to establish Angelito’s psychological incapacity

A.     Psychological testimony and report did not conclusively show root cause, gravity and incurability of Angelito’s alleged psychological condition.

·       Psychologist only evaluated Angelito’s condition in an indirect manner – derived from the information coming from Jocelyn (a directly interested party)

·       Psychologist could not have secured a complete personality profile and could not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelito’s psychological condition.

·       Psychologist:

o   Based Angelito’s behavior on the fact that he grew up in a dysfunctional family à this statement was also from Jocelyn (an assumption on her part)

o   Provided a general description of Angelito’s purported Anti-Social personality disorder

B.     Jocelyn’s Testimony

·       Finds her testimony insufficient.

·       Merely testified on Angelito’s habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to seek employment and physical beatings (which all occurred AFTER the marriage)

·       In her testimony: Jocelyn said there were no signs of violent behavior during the courtship stage or earliest states of her relationship

·       Habitual drunkenness, refusal to work, gambling does not by themselves show psychological incapacity.

** Jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence showing A LINK, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

JUDGMENT:

- CA correctly applied Article 36 and its related jurisprudence to the facts and evidence of the case.

- Petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

- CA decision AFFIRMED.

- Costs against PETITIONER.