Fsadfsafa
Fsadfsafa
Fsadfsafa
FIRST DIVISION
DECISION
GESMUNDO, C.J.:
Trial Court ofNaga City, Branch 20 (RTC). The CA held that petitioner failed
to establish psychological incapacity either on his part or that of his wife,
Marivic Clavecilla (Marivic), under Article 36 of the Family Code. 5
Antecedents
5
Id. at 51-53.
6
Records, p. 2.
7
Id. at 588-589.
8
Id at 2.
9 Id. at 585.
10 Id. at 89.
11
Id. at 586.
12
Id. at 1-8.
13 Id. at 2-3.
Decision 3 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
14 Id. at 4.
15 Id. at 11-21.
16
Id. at 20.
17 Id. at 21.
18
Id. at 597-598.
19
Id. at 599-600.
_ 20 Id. at 52-72.
21
Id. at 58.
22
Id. at 53.
23
Id. at 58.
24 Marivic showed proof that she worked as Secretary/Bookeeper in Bonn, Germany; as an Information
On April 10, 2013, the RTC granted the petition based on its findings
that petitioner was psychologically incapacitated. The RTC noted that even if
petitioner was unsuccessful in pinning the blame on Marivic for their failed
marriage, Dr. Tayag had sufficiently explained that petitioner's psychological
incapacity made it difficult for him to accept his failures and to acknowledge
his shortcomings. The RTC believed that such personality disorder was
characterized by juridical antecedence, having been deeply rooted and
ingrained in his personality prior to his marriage. 27 Hence, the RTC disposed:
The settlement of the parties stated in this Order of this Court dated
15 June 2012, on the issue of support is hereby reinstated such that the
Petitioner is directed to give monthly support to his son in the amount of
Twenty Five Thousand Pesos (Php 25,000.00) starting 15 July 2012 and
thereafter.
Upon finality of this Decision, the Court shall forthwith issue the
corresponding degree of nullity of marriage upon compliance with Section
21 of AM 02-11-10-SC on liquidation, partition, and distribution of the
properties of the spouses.
SO ORDERED. 28
27
Rollo, p. 65.
28 Id. at 70.
Decision 5 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
Marivic filed a Motion for Reconsideration, 29 but the same was denied
by the RTC in its Order3° issued on July 29, 2013. Aggrieved, Marivic filed
her Notice of Appeal 31 which the RTC gave due course on November 8,
2013. 32
Ruling of the CA
In the now assailed decision, the CA reversed the RTC and held that
the interview conducted by Dr. Tayag on petitioner and his friends, her
testimony, and the documentary evidence submitted to the court, were
insufficient to prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of petitioner's
condition. 33 It held that the juridical antecedence of the alleged incapacity was
unclear; that Dr. Tayag's findings were primarily based on the information
provided by petitioner, which thereby casts doubt on the conclusiveness of her
findings; and that there was no explanation on how petitioner's narcissism
made him psychologically incapacitated to perform his obligations as a
husband. 34 The CA likewise did not find merit in petitioner's allegations of
psychological incapacity on the part ofMarivic. 35 The CA concluded that:
SO ORDERED. 36
Issues
Furthermore, Marivic did not raise any new argument or fact in her
appeal; hence, the findings of the RTC which were supported by preponderant
evidence, should be accorded respect and must not be disturbed on appeal. 39
40
Finally, petitioner argues that the Court, in Kalaw v. Fernandez,
(Kalaw) has relaxed the rigid guidelines in deciding petitions filed under Art.
36 of the Family Code. He maintains that the facts in Kalaw and the instant
case are identical, hence, the dissolution of his marriage is only proper and
necessary. 41
On her part, Marivic posits that the instant petition should be dismissed
because the verification and certification of non-forum shopping were not
signed by petitioner, 42 and for raising question offacts. 43 She also opines that
petitioner failed to prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of his
purported psychological incapacity; that the findings on the root cause of the
alleged psychological incapacity was couched in general and ambiguous
36
Id. at 54.
37 Id.atl9.
38
Id. at 27-29.
39 Id. at 29-32.
40 750 Phil. 482 (2015).
41 Rollo, pp. 32-34.
42 Id. at I 12-114.
43
Id. at I 15.
Decision 7 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
The Office of the Solicitor General ( OSG) argues in its Comment49 that
the petition is dismissible for raising questions of fact. 50 It also observed that
the findings of Dr. Tayag on the root cause and gravity of petitioner's alleged
psychological incapacity were general and vague. The report failed to point
out the actual and specific circumstances in petitioner's upbringing that may
have led him to crave for attention and recognition which resulted in his
alleged disorder. 51 The OSG also maintains that the report is unreliable
because it was based on petitioner's self-serving declarations. 52
Petitioner likewise counters that the present petition is exempt from the
rule that only questions of law may be raised in a petition filed under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. The significant variance between the findings of the
RTC and the CA, as well as the erroneous inference and misapprehension of
facts by the CA, constitute as exceptions to the rule. 55 Petitioner maintains that
Dr. Tayag's report was supported by factual evidence; and that his narcissistic
tendencies were consistent with Marivic's description of his behavior during
their marriage. 56 He further insists that the RTC had fully discussed in its
44
Id. at 117.
45
Id. at 120-121.
46 Id. at 121-122.
47 335 Phil. 664 (1997).
48 Rollo, pp. 123-124.
49 Id. at 160-181.
50
Id. at 168-171.
51
Id. at I 73.
52
Id. at 174-175.
53
Id. at 147-158.
54
Id. at 148.
55 Id. at 185-186.
56 Id. at 186.
Decision 8 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
Based on the parties' opposing arguments, the Court will resolve the
following: (1) may the psychologically incapacitated spouse initiate a petition
for annulment of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code; (2) did the ruling
in Kalaw abandon the guidelines laid down in Molina; and (3) should the
marriage of petitioner and Marivic be annulled due to psychological
incapacity on the part of petitioner?
Our Ruling
57
Id. at 188.
58 594 Phil. 246 (2008).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
59
Id. at 26 l-262.
60 Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation v. Dela Cruz, 746 Phil. 209,225 (2014).
61 Joven v. Spouses Tulia, G.R. No. 204567, August 4, 2021.
62 On May 1, 2020, the 2019 Amendments to the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. One of the
changes introduced by the amendments is found in Sec. 5 of Rule 7 which now reads:
Sec. 5. Certification against forum shopping. - The plaintiff or principal party shall certify
under oath in the complaint or other initiatory pleading asserting a claim for relief, or in a sworn
certification annexed thereto and simultaneously filed therewith: (a) that he [or she] has not
theretofore commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same issues in any court, tribunal
or quasi-judicial agency and, to the best of his [or her] knowledge, no such other action or claim is
pending therein; (b) if there is such other pending action or claim, a complete statement of the
present status thereof; and (c) ifhe [or she] should thereafter learn that the same or similar action or
claim has been filed or is pending, he [or she] shall report that fact within five (5) calendar days
therefrom to the court wherein his [or her] aforesaid complaint or initiatory pleading has been filed.
The authorization of the affiant to act on behalf of a party, whether in the form of a
secretary's certificate or a special power of attorney, should be attached to the pleading.
Decision 10 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
[W]hen an SPA was constituted precisely to authorize the agent to file and
prosecute suits on behalf of the principal, then it is such agent who has
actual and personal knowledge whether he or she has initiated similar
actions or proceedings before various courts on the same issue on the
principal' s behalf, thus, satisfying the requirements for a valid certification
against forum shopping. The rationale behind the rule that it must be the
"petitioner or principal party himself' who should sign such certification
does not apply. Thus, the rule on the certification against forum shopping
has been properly complied with when it is the agent or attorney-in-fact who
initiated the action on the principal' s behalf and who signed the certification
against forum shopping. 65
Also in Fyfe v. Philippine Airlines, Inc., 66 the Court relaxed the rule on
certification against forum shopping under Sec. 4, Rule 45, in relation to Sec.
2, Rule 42 of the Rules of Court, when there was no showing that petitioners
therein and their counsel intended to circumvent the requirements for
verification and certification.
Failure to comply with the foregoing requirements shall not be curable by mere amendment of
the complaint or other initiatory pleading but shall be cause for the dismissal of the case without
prejudice, unless otherwise provided, upon motion and after hearing. The submission of a false
certification or [noncompliance] with any of the undertakings therein shall constitute indirect
contempt of court, without prejudice to the corresponding administrative and criminal actions. If the
acts of the party or his [or her] counsel clearly constitute willful and deliberate forum shopping, the
same shall be ground for summary dismissal with prejudice and shall constitute direct contempt, as
well as a cause for administrative sanctions. (Emphasis supplied)
63 Heirs a/Gabriel v. Cebrero, 843 Phil. 53, 64-65 (2018).
64
Supra.
65 Id. at 66.
66 786 Phil. 292 (2016).
67 See Hubilla v. HSY Marketing Ltd, Co., 823 Phil. 358, 383 (2018).
Decision 11 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
executed had expressly granted Atty. Clavecilla the authority "[t]o initiate the
filing of a petition for review/appeal to the Supreme Court" and "[t]o sign any
and all pleadings" in connection with the petition. 68 Hence, Atty. Clavecilla is
vested with sufficient authority to sign the verification and certification of
non-forum shopping on behalf of petitioner.
The Rules of Court requires that only questions of law may be raised in
petitions filed under Rule 45, since factual questions are not the proper subject
of an appeal by certiorari. It is not the function of this Court to once again
68
Rollo, p. 41.
69 Id. at 39. Underscoring supplied.
70
Id. at 11-12.
Decision 12 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
analyze or weigh evidence that has already been considered in the lower
courts. 71
In view of the conflicting findings of the RTC and the CA, the rule
prohibiting factual issues from being raised in a petition for review under Rule
45 shall be set aside to settle the controversies inherent in this case. As such,
the procedural challenge against the inclusion of factual matters in the instant
case fails.
Marivic avers that petitioner came to court with unclean hands, having
allegedly engaged in extramarital affairs and, thereafter, claimed to be
psychologically incapacitated in order to break free from the marriage bond.
As such, he should not be allowed to benefit from his own misdeed. 73
The doctrine of unclean hands originated from the maxim "he who
comes into equity must come there with clean hands." It is a frequently stated
maxim which is also expressed in the principle that he or she who has done
inequity shall not have equity. It signifies that a litigant may be denied relief
by a court of equity on the ground that his or her conduct has been inequitable,
unfair and dishonest, or fraudulent, or deceitful as to the controversy in issue. 76
Equity refuses to offer its aid in any manner to one seeking its active
interposition who has been guilty of unlawful or inequitable conduct in the
matter with relation to which he seeks relief. 77 The early case of North Negros
Sugar Co., Inc. v. Hidalgo 78 explained the unclean hands doctrine as follows:
Coming into Equity with Clean Hands. - The maxim that he who
comes into equity must come with clean hands is, of course, applicable in
suits to obtain relief by injunction. Injunction will be denied even though
complainant shows that he has a right and would otherwise be entitled to the
remedy in case it appears that he himself acted dishonestly, fraudulently or
illegally in respect to the matter in which redress is sought, or where he has
encouraged, invited or contributed to the injury sought to be enjoined.
However, the general principle that he who comes into equity must
come with clean hands applies only to plaintiff's conduct in relation to
the very matter in litigation. The want of equity that will bar a right to
equitable relief for coming into court with unclean hands must be so
directly connected with the matter in litigation that it has affected the
equitable relations of the parties arising out of the transaction in
question. 79 (Emphasis supplied)
The Court had the occasion to apply the unclean hands doctrine in the
1934 case of Villanueva v. Villanueva 80 (Villanueva), which involved an
action for support filed by the wife against her husband. When the case was
decided in favor of the wife, the husband mortgaged some of his properties,
left the country, and abandoned his family without any visible means of
support. In executing the judgment, the sheriff seized and subsequently sold
the properties, which the wife bought as partial payment for the judgment she
had secured. The husband later sought to annul the sheriff sale, contending
that tl:ie wife cannot enter into such transaction without his consent. In
rejecting the claim, the Court applied the unclean hands doctrine and held that
the husband should not be allowed to benefit from his act of depriving his
family of support. The Court noted that after violating his marital obligations,
the husband had the temerity to seek equitable relief through an annulment of
deed of sale that was aimed at leaving his wife and children in absolute want. 81
Notable, however, that except for the case of Villanueva, there has been
no other occasion wherein the Court resolved a conflict between spouses by
applying the unclean hands doctrine, especially one involving a petition to
declare nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code.
At any rate, the Court does not see any reason why the principle of clean
hands should prevent a psychologically incapacitated spouse from initiating a
proceeding to annul a marriage. This is because there is no party at fault in
case of annulment of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Culpability
cannot be imputed on the part of the spouse said to be psychologically
incapacitated since it is not deliberate or intentional on his or her part to
possess such personality trait. By reason of psychological incapacity, it cannot
be said that bad faith had motivated the afflicted spouse to enter into a
marriage or to even seek for a declaration of its nullity. It must be emphasized
that the unclean hands doctrine only avails in cases of inequity, which does
not exist in a marriage sought to be annulled on the basis of psychological
incapacity of a spouse to comprehend and discharge the concomitant marital
obligations.
Most importantly, Art. 36 of the Family Code does not prohibit the
psychologically incapacitated spouse from initiating the action. Indeed, under
the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and
Annulment of Voidable Marriages, 82 (the Rule) the Court allows either of the
spouses to file the petition, alleging specifically, the facts showing the
incapacity of either or both of them:
xxxx
The recent case of Republic v. Claur83 reinforces Sec. 2(d) of the Rule
that a petition for nullity of marriage may be filed by either spouses, whether
incapacitated or not. In this case, both the wife and the husband were found to
have been psychologically incapacitated. Verily, the courts do not limit the
right to initiate a petition to nullify the marriage to the spouse who is not
psychologically incapacitated.
A. Article 1.
83
G.R. No. 246868, February 15, 2022.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
of the following grounds existed at but was made manifest after the
celebration of the marriage;
Director Romero stated that they also intend to keep the provisions
on armulment ofmarriage. 84
Clearly, the intent of the framers was to enable either party to file the
petition for annulment on the ground of psychological incapacity unlike the
other grounds for declaring a marriage void. Such was the intent of the framers
of the Family Code that, even during the August 2 and August 9, 1986
meetings of the Civil Code Revision and the IBP Family Law Committees,
there was no mention on whether the spouse who may initiate the action
should be free from any psychological incapacity:
84 Minutes of the Joint Meeting of the Civil Code Revision and the IBP Family Law Committees, February
9, 1984, pp. l-2.
85 Id., August 2, I 986, p. 4.
Decision 17 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
Standards in determining
psychological incapacity
Art. 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.
( 1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and
continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.
XXX
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically
or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently
proven by experts[,] and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article
36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be
psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or
symptoms may be physical. The evidence must convince the court that
the parties, or one of them, was mentally or psychically ill to such an
extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was
assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption
thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here
so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle
of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as
a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained.
Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical
psychologists.
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the
party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. xx x
xxxx
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the
Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall
be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification,
which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons
for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. 92
However, the Court later recognized in Ngo Te v. Yu-Te 93 (Ngo Te) that
the resiliency adopted by the framers of the Family Code had been rendered
ineffectual by the strict standards in Molina. Hence, in declaring the marriage
of the parties in Ngo Te as null and void, the Court emphasized that the courts
should interpret psychological incapacity on a case-to-case basis instead of
applying a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations. 94
97
Id.
98
Id.
99
G.R. No. 216655, April 20, 2022.
Decision 21 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
JOO Id.
/
•
101 Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and
render mutual help and support.
Art. 69. The husband and wife shall fix the family domicile. ln case of disagreement, the court shall
decide.
The court may exempt one spouse from living with the other if the latter should live abroad or there are
other valid and compelling reasons for the exemption. However, such exemption shall not apply if the
same is not compatible with the solidarity of the family.
Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support
and other conjugal obligations shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof,
from the income or fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income
or fruits, such obligations shall be satisfied from the separate properties.
Art. 71. The management of the household shall be the right and the duty of both spouses. The expenses
for such management shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 70.
Decision 23 G.R. No. 228127
March 6, 2023
aspect where Marivic, in the eyes of petitioner, failed in her duties, effectively
admitting that she had no difficulty in performing the remaining obligations.
Petitioner heavily relied on the report of Dr. Tayag, but there was
nothing in her report which indicated a pattern indicating his inability to
perform the essential spousal obligations. The said report merely provided a
102
Records, pp. 695-699.
103
Id. at 597-600.
J
•
To be clear, the Court does not doubt the diagnosis of Dr. Tayag~ this
is one aspect of the report that the Court will not tread on, as it is not an expert
in the field of psychology or human behavior. However, her report lacked
specific instances of petitioner's behavior inconsistent with that of a husband
who is always present, loving, faithful, respectful, and supportive towards
Marivic.
More importantly, petitioner failed to impress upon the Court that his
NPD impaired his ability to discharge the essential marital obligations under
Arts. 68 to 71 of the Family Code. To reiterate, psychological incapacity
should be viewed in the legal sense, and not in the medical sense. In sum, the
totality of the evidence presented by petitioner failed to establish that his
enduring personality structure rendered him incapable of comprehending and
discharging his marital obligations in terms of juridical antecedence, gravity,
and incurability in the legal sense.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~Moo
Associate Justice
,,~
JO~~MARQUEZ
Associate Justice
CERTIFICATION
G.GESMUNDO
•