Republic of the Philippines

Supreme Court
Manila


THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 167523 June 27, 2008


NILDA V. NAVALES,
Petitioner,
- versus -

REYNALDO NAVALES,

Respondent.



FACTS:
In 1986, Nilda and Reynaldo met in a local bar where Nilda was a waitress. Because of his fear that
Nilda may be wed to an American, Reynaldo proposed to Nilda and they got married in 1988.
Reynaldo is aware that Nilda has an illegitimate child out of wedlock. The 1st year of their marriage
went well until Nilda began to work when she neglected some of her duties as a wife. She later
worked as a gym instructor and according to Reynaldos allegations; her job makes her flirt with her
male clients. She also drives home with other guys even though Reynaldo would be there to fetch
her. She also projected herself as single. And she refused to have a child with Reynaldo because
that would only destroy her figure. Reynaldo then filed a petition to have their marriage be annulled.
He presented her cousin as a witness that attested that Nilda was flirting with other guys even with
Reynaldos presence. Reynaldo also presented the findings of a psychologist who concluded that
based on Nildas acts, Nilda is a nymphomaniac, who has a borderline personality, a social deviant,
an alcoholic, and suffering from anti-social personality disorder, among others, which illnesses are
incurable and are the causes of Nildas psychological incapacity to perform her marital role as wife to
Reynaldo. Nilda on her part attacked Reynaldos allegations. She said that it is actually Reynaldo
who is a womanizer and that in fact she has filed a case of concubinage against him which was still
pending. She also said that she only needs the job in order to support herself because Reynaldo is
not supporting her. She also showed proof that she projected herself as a married woman and that
she handles an aerobics class which is exclusive to females only. The RTC and the CA ruled in
favor of Reynaldo.

ISSUE: Whether the marriage between Reynaldo and Nilda is null and void on the ground of Nildas
psychological incapacity.

HELD: The petition must be granted because the States participation in this case is wanting. There
were no other pleadings, motions, or position papers filed by the Public Prosecutor or OSG; and no
controverting evidence presented by them before the judgment was rendered. And even if the SC
would consider the case based on the merits, the petition would still be granted. The acts presented
by Reynaldo by themselves are insufficient to establish a psychological or mental defect that is
serious, incurable or grave as contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code. Article 36
contemplates downright incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital
obligations. Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will
on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted on some debilitating psychological
condition or illness. Indeed, irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional
immaturity and irresponsibility, and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological
incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a persons refusal or unwillingness to
assume the essential obligations of marriage and not due to some psychological illness that is
contemplated by said rule. The SC also finds the finding of the psychological expert to be insufficient
to prove the PI of Nilda. The testimonies presented by people the expert interviewed were not
concretely established as the fact as to how those people came up with their respective information
was not as well shown. There is no proof as well that Nilda had had sex with different guys a
condition for nymphomia. There being doubt as to Nildas PI the SC ruled that this case be resolved
in favor of the validity of marriage.