Você está na página 1de 1

=olanda ;. Garlet v. >encidor T. Garlet 3u,ust #( #) ?G.R. No.

=olanda ;. Garlet and >encidor T. Garlet met and &ecame intimatelyinvolved /ith each other( /hich resulted in =olanda ,ettin,
pre,nant. She,ave &irth to their son and later on ,ot married. They soon had another child.>encidor is a/are that
=olanda is /orkin, in Aapan as an entertainer. There/as no ante+nuptial a,reement &efore they contracted marria,e and
alsothere /as no separation of properties durin, their marria,e. 3fter a/hile(=olanda and >encidor e4perienced
marital pro&lems and they separated.=olanda has the custody of the children and she /as the one supportin,them.
She admitted that they ac*uired properties durin, their coha&itation/ith her o/n money. She then filed for
a Declaration of Nullity of 8arria,e onthe ,round of >encidor0s psycholo,ical incapacity to fulfill his essential
maritalo&li,ations to =olanda and their children. =olanda also admitted that >encidordid not under,o a psycholo,ical
e4amination &y the psycholo,ist sou,ht &yher &ecause he did not appear to the invitation. The clinical
psycholo,istfound >encidor to &e sufferin, from Narcissistic Type of Personality Disorder.The RTC rendered a
decision that their marria,e is null and void on the,round of psycholo,ical incapacity. The C3 on appeal rendered a
decisioncontrary to that of the RTC.
5hether or not the marria,e &et/een =olanda and >encidor is null andvoid6
No. The marria,e &et/een =olanda and >encidor is not null and void.
The Supreme Court a,rees /ith the C3 that the totality of=olanda0s evidence is insufficient to esta&lish >encidor0s
psycholo,icalincapacity. =olanda imputes almost every ima,ina&le ne,ative character traita,ainst >encidor( &ut
not only do they not satisfactorily constitutemanifestations of >encidor0s psycholo,ical incapacity as
contemplated in the-amily Code( =olanda0s averments are riddled /ith inconsistencies that aresometimes
contradicted &y her o/n evidence.

The Court is not &ound &y the psycholo,ical report. 5hile the Court previouslyheld that 9there is no
re*uirement that the person to &e declaredpsycholo,ically incapacitated &e personally e4amined &y
a physician(: yet(this is *ualified &y the phrase( 9if the totality of evidence presented is enou,hto sustain
a findin, of psycholo,ical incapacity.: The psycholo,ist0s findin,smust still &e su&<ected to a careful and
serious scrutiny as to the &ases of thesame( particularly( the source s of information( as /ell as
the methodolo,yemployed