Você está na página 1de 8

Kalaw vs. Fernandez, G.R. No.

166357, January 14, 2015

Declaration of Nullity of Marriage “Annulment” on


the most common ground- psychological
incapacity
Psychological Incapacity
 Refers to no less than a mental (not
physical) incapacity that causes a party to
be truly incognitive of the basic marital
covenants that concomitantly must be
assumed and discharged by the parties to
the marriage which, as so expressed in
Art. 68 of the Family Code, include their
mutual obligations to live, together,
respect and fidelity and support.
(Hernandez v. CA, 116 SCAD 817 [1999])
FACTS
 This is a resolution for a Motion for Reconsideration filed
before the Supreme Court to take a thorough second look
on its promulgation on September 19, 2011.

 Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976.


After the birth of their 4th child, Tyrone had an affair with
Jocelyn Quejano. Malyn left the conjugal home and her four
children with Tyrone, who started living with Jocelyn

 9 years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone


filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on
Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was
psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the
essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of
their marriage.
FACTS
 Tyrone presented two experts to prove Malyn’s
Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
 The RTC declared the marriage void ab initio pursuant
to Article 36 of the Family Code both suffering from
psychological incapacity to perform their essential
marital obligations
 Malyn appealed the trial court’s decision to CA. The
CA reversed the ruling of the lower court

 Not satisfied, Tyrone filed a Petition for Review of The


Court of Appeals’ decision and resolution before the
Supreme Court which dismissed the complaint for
declaration of nullity of the marriage on the ground
that there was no factual basis for the conclusion of
psychological incapacity. (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G. R. No.
166357, September 19,2011)
ISSUES:

1. Whether the experts’ opinions considered as


decisive evidence as to the psychological and
emotional temperaments to nullify the
marriage

2. Whether or not the respondent or both are


psychologically incapacitated to perform their
marital obligations and should constitute a
ground for nullity of marriage.
HELD
First Issue
 Yes. The experts’ opinion considered as decisive
evidence as to psychological and emotional
temperaments

In the task of ascertaining the presence of psychological


incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage, the courts,
which are concededly not endowed with expertise in the
field of psychology, must of necessity rely on the opinions
of experts in order to inform themselves on the matter,
and thus enable themselves to arrive at an intelligent and
judicious judgment. The court held that said experts
sufficiently and competently described the psychological
incapacity of the respondent within the standards of Article 36
of the Family Code.
RULING

Second Issue

Yes, willfully exposing children to gambling constitutes


neglect of parental duties

 The court declared the wife’s acts as manifestation of


psychological incapacity.

 The fact that the respondent willfully expose her children to


a culture of gambling and other vices that would erode their
moral fiber is very grave and serious act of subordinating
their needs for parenting to the gratification of her own
personal and escapist desires. This disregard violated her
duty as a parent to safeguard and protect her children hence
constitutes psychological incapacity.
References:
1. Printed Source
 Republic vs. Court of Appeals 268 SCRA 198
 Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated, 2013 Edition
 657 SCRA 822
 Ngo Te v.Yu-Te, G.R. No. 161793, Februrary 13, 2009, 579 SCRA 193, 228
 Tuason v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116607, April 10, 1996, 256 SCRA 158, 170
 Separate Statement of Justice Teodoro Padilla in Republic in Republic v. Court of Appeals,
supra, note 8, at 214
 Collado v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72780, February 13, 1992, 206 SCRA
206, 212; People v. Basmayor, G.R. No. 182791, February 10, 2009, 578 SCRA 369, 382-383
 Republic v. Court of Appeals and Roridel Olaviano Molina G.R. No. (108763)
 Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA 353, 379

2. Electronic Sources
 www.jlp-law.com/blog/guidelines-psychological-incapacity-article-36-family-code/
 sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/116357.htm