Leonilo Antonio vs Marie Ivonne F.

Reyes

FACTS:

Antonio and Reyes first got married at Manila City Hall and subsequently in
church on December 8, 1990. A child was born in April 1991 but died 5 months
later. Antonio could no longer take her constant lying, insecurities and jealousies over
him so he separated from her in August 1991. He attempted reconciliation but since her
behavior did not change, he finally left her for good in November 1991. Only after their
marriage that he learned about her child with another man.

He then filed a petition in 1993 to have his marriage with Reyes declared null and
void under Article 36 of the Family Code

The trial court gave credence to Antonio's evidence and thus declared the
marriage null and void.

Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision. It held that the totality of
evidence presented was insufficient to establish Reyes' psychological incapacity. It
declared that the requirements in the 1997 Molina case had not been satisfied.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Antonio has established his cause of action for declaration of
nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code and, generally, under the Molina guidelines.

RULING:

Yes. The petitioner, aside from his own testimony, presented a psychiatrist and
clinical psychologist who attested that constant lying and extreme jealousy of Reyes is
abnormal and pathological and corroborated his allegations on his wife's behavior,
which amounts to psychological incapacity.

The factual findings of the trial court are deemed binding on the SC, owing to the
great weight accorded to the opinion of the primary trier of facts. As such, it must be
considered that respondent had consistently lied about many material aspects as to her
character and personality. Her fantastic ability to invent and fabricate stories and
personalities enabled her to live in a world of make-believe. This made her
psychologically incapacitated as it rendered her incapable of giving meaning and
significance to her marriage.

The case sufficiently satisfies the Molina guidelines:

First, that Antonio had sufficiently overcome his burden in proving the
psychological incapacity of his wife;

Second, that the root cause of Reyes' psychological incapacity has been
medically or clinically identified that was sufficiently proven by experts, and was clearly
explained in the trial court's decision;

Third, that she fabricated friends and made up letters before she married him
prove that her psychological incapacity was have existed even before the celebration of
marriage;

Fourth, that the gravity of Reyes' psychological incapacity was considered so

grave that a restrictive clause was appended to the sentence of nullity prohibited by the
National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal from contracting marriage without their consent;

Fifth, that she being an inveterate pathological liar makes her unable to commit
the basic tenets of relationship between spouses based on love, trust, and respect.

Sixth, that the CA clearly erred when it failed to take into consideration the fact
that the marriage was annulled by the Catholic Church. However, it is the factual
findings of the judicial trier of facts, and not of the canonical courts, that are accorded
significant recognition by this Court.

Seventh, that Reyes' case is incurable considering that Antonio tried to reconcile
with her but her behavior remains unchanged.