DECISION nullity

This resolves the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petttioner __________ on ________ against defendant Jonie M. Mangle based on Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Respondent ____________ is a resident of Brgy. Imelda, Pilar, Camotes Group of Island, Cebu. Copy of the summons together with the complaint was only served to respondent on December 2, 2008 as evidenced by the Return of Service of Summons dated December 4, 2008 and certified by the process server ___________ Despite receipt of summons and complaint respondent did not file any answer thereof.

On __________ petitioner through counsel filed a Motion To Order the City Prosecutor to Conduct an Investigation that No Collusion Existed between the Parties which was granted by this Court in its Order dated February 10, 2009.

Such report ( On Non- Collunsion of Paties) was filed on August 26, 2009 with this Court by the Office of the City Prosecutor wherein the investigating prosecutor concluded, among others, that the pieces of information gathered all led to reasonalble and fair conclusion that there was no collusion between tha parties in filling instant case.

On 11 February 2010, the pre-trial conference was held petitioner, Janeth Mangle, personally appeared with her counsel of record, _______________, The respondent, ______________, however, was conspicuously absent and neither was he represented by counsel. Pros_____________appeared in behalf of the Solicitor General.

Page 1 of 17

Trial proper for the reception of petitioner’s evidence then followed.

On March 17 and 19, 2010, _________ presented to the witness stand his first witness, the petitioner herself, ____________whose testimony was offered to prove the psychological incapacity of the dependant which occurred even before their marriage. Her tsetimony2 may be summarized, thus:

On March 24, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented her second witness in the person of ___________ who testified to corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff as regard the behavior and attitude of the defendant buttressing petitioner’s claim about the psychological incapacity of respondent as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code. Her testimony may be stated in gist, viz:

On May 4, 2010, petitioner presented her last witness in the person of ____________, a Clinical Psychologist, who was presented as an expert witness in the field of clinical psychology. He identified his Clinical Psychological Report5 and his testimony6 would be substantially as follows:

That he is a Professor from the Psychology Department of University of San Carlos, Cebu City being clinical psychologist. In the course of his professional duties, he came across the person of the petitioner, ______________, for the purpose of conducting a psychological examination to evaluate the alleged psychological incapacity of the respondent in this case, _______________.

Page 2 of 17

That as expert in said field, he came up with a conclusion, after conducting an exhaustive psychological evaluation, that the respondent suffers from a permanent and incurable personality disorder known as Anti-social Personality Disorder.

That he conducted his Psychological Report into writing consisting of seven (7) pages. That he administered interview and test on the petitioner and her witnesses, Lolita Rapales and a neighbor, and gathered that respondent exhibited behaviors symptomatic of an anti-social individual as shown by his extreme lack of concern, insensitivity, callousness, and apathy or lack of emotional belongingness to the members of his family. That his psychological disorder effectively hindered the respondent from performing his marital and filial obligation to his wife and children.

That his personality disorder became more pronounced during the marriage but, in fact, the same wasalready existing before the celebration of the marriage between the parties. That since the disorder is already very serious; it constituted already a threat to the marriage because the other members of the family will suffer from its consequences, which ultimately destroyed said marriage. That said personality disorder is permanent and incurable because the afflicted individual refuses to acknowledge that he has such mental affliction and would refuse any therapy.

That respondent’s personality disorder can be traced way back in his younger days within the dynamics of the family he came from. The he grew up with a vicious father and undisciplining mother. That respondent grew up a juvenile delinquent, a precursor of his anti-social personality disorder. That respondent was a wayward kid, spending his time with his peers, and drop-out from school. He merely strolled

Page 3 of 17

around town with no direction but whose purpose was only to meet his own needs. That he would yearn for comforts but would shirk away from any responsibility. That he same pattern in his younger days was exhibited by him during his marriage due to his personality disorder.

Nevertheless, he does not consider that petitioner; Janeth Mangle contributed to the development of the personality disorder of the respondent because it was already existing prior and on the day of the celebration of their marriage.That petitioner was very patient because despite the three(3) separation that happened, she still accepted the dependant into their family. That when a fourth separation happened, even the relatives of the respondent acknowledged the shortcoming and faults of their own kin. They even supports petitioner’s decision to sever and end a hopeless marriage.

On May 7, 2010, petitioner through counsel filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits which were admitted by the Court in its order dated July 8, 2010, thus;

Exhibit “A” - Summons

Exhibit “B” -Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General

Exhibit” C” - Authority given to the City Prosecutor

Exhibit “D” - The petition/ complaint for the nullity of marriage of the parties in this case

Exhibit E” - Certificate of Marriage

Page 4 of 17

Exhibit “F” -Report of Collusion of Non-Collusion of parties

Exhibit “G” - Birth Certificate of

Exhibit “H” - Birth Certificate of

Exhibit “I” - Baptism Certificate of

Exhibit “J “& J-1” – Clinical Psychologist’s Report

From the judicious consideration of the evidence on record, the Court finds that petitioner succeeded to prove that respondent Jonie M. Mangle is psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations, being someone afflicted with a permanent, incurable and serious personality disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Psychological incapacity as defined by Ernesto L. Pineda in his book “The Family Code of the Philippines Annotated”, is a mental condition which perpetually prevents or incapacitates a person martially contracted to another voluntarily, from performing or complying with certain essential marital obligations, resulting in the failure to achieve the basic ends of marriage, which mental condition is serious, with roots antedating the marriage and is incurable.

Respondent’s mental condition of leisurely spending most of his time with his friends, coming home late at night or even early morning of the following day and wasting his hard earned and inadequate salary for drinking sprees instead of giving it to his wife for the sustenance of his family, prevents him from performing his essential marital obligations.

As to the requirements of establishing psychological incapacity, as laid down in the case of Dimayuga- Laurena vs. Court of Appeals7, that psychological incapacity must be

Page 5 of 17

characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability elaborated as follows:

Gravity- it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

Juridical Antecedence- it must be rooted in the part history of the party antedating the marriage although the overt manifestation may emerge only after the marriage;

Incurability- It must be incurable or even if it so, the cure is beyond the means of the party involved,

This Court believes that the foregoing were convincingly established and complied with by petitioner through her expert witness, Dr. Andres Suan Gerong. The Latter’s testimony is worthy of belief and credence that based from his expert opinion on the psychological profile of respondent Jonie Mangle, the latter is suffering from a personality disorders known as “ Antisocial Personality Disorder”. The presentation of his psychological report and his candid and persuasive explanation in open court based from a thorough and in-depth assessment of respondent’s psychological condition convinced this Court that respondent’s psychological malady is indeed grave severe and incurable.

The testimony of the above-named three(3) witnesses, taken as a whole, show a disturbing pattern of insensitivity, callousness and apathy and lack of emotional belongingness of respondent who showed an utter lack of sense of appreciation of his marital status with petitioner. Dr. Gerong candidly explained that such personality disorder of respondent can be traced to his childhood and adolescent because the afflicted person himself would refuse any measure of reformation. The evidence of the petitioner

Page 6 of 17

shows that even during respondent’s younger days, respondent was already a wayward kid, spending his time with his peers, a drop out from school and was lazy to attend school. His sense of direction was only to meet his own needs without the concomitant responsibilities.

The evidence on record no doubt shows that respondent lacks any sense of responsibility and respect to his wife. He was totally devoid of any paternal instinct because he never had second thoughts of abandoning his children and never thought of providing them of moral, emotional and financial support. Petitioner’s evidence as a whole would really support her claim that respondent is indeed psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations especially those provided by law under Article 68 and 70 of the Family Code, which provided:

“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observed mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”

“Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligation shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income of fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or absence of said income or fruits, such obligation shall be satisfied from their separate properties.

These provision demand for the personal commitment of each spouses in a marriage to sincerely carry-out the obligation demanded of the marriage, that is: to live together, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity to comply. He failed to appreciate these personal obligations of married man because of this psychological incapacity to

Page 7 of 17

appreciate them. “The non- performance of said obligations by the spouse endows the other certain causes of action such as declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.”8

Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriage illeequipped to promote family life.9

Considerably as well, applying the ruling of no less than the Supreme Court in Yu vs. Yu10, that “by petitioner’s filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of custody of Bianca as an incident thereof”, this Court resolves that the custody of the children, and shall belong to the herein petitioner,.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage between petitioner, celebrated on August 15, 1997 as NULL and VOID ab intio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, that renders him unfit to discharge his essential marital obligation, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code with all the effects provided by law.

Custody of this three (3) children shall remain with petitioner without prejudice to the visitation of the respondent. Furthermore, the parties are jointly responsible for the support of their children.

SOORDERED.

Page 8 of 17

DECISION

This resolves the petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petttioner __________ on ________ against defendant Jonie M. Mangle based on Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.

Respondent ____________ is a resident of Brgy. Imelda, Pilar, Camotes Group of Island, Cebu. Copy of the summons together with the complaint was only served to respondent on December 2, 2008 as evidenced by the Return of Service of Summons dated December 4, 2008 and certified by the process server ___________ Despite receipt of summons and complaint respondent did not file any answer thereof.

On __________ petitioner through counsel filed a Motion To Order the City Prosecutor to Conduct an Investigation that No Collusion Existed between the Parties which was granted by this Court in its Order dated February 10, 2009.

Such report ( On Non- Collunsion of Paties) was filed on August 26, 2009 with this Court by the Office of the City Prosecutor wherein the investigating prosecutor concluded,

Page 9 of 17

among others, that the pieces of information gathered all led to reasonalble and fair conclusion that there was no collusion between tha parties in filling instant case.

On 11 February 2010, the pre-trial conference was held petitioner, Janeth Mangle, personally appeared with her counsel of record, _______________, The respondent, ______________, however, was conspicuously absent and neither was he represented by counsel. Pros_____________appeared in behalf of the Solicitor General.

Trial proper for the reception of petitioner’s evidence then followed.

On March 17 and 19, 2010, _________ presented to the witness stand his first witness, the petitioner herself, ____________whose testimony was offered to prove the psychological incapacity of the dependant which occurred even before their marriage. Her tsetimony2 may be summarized, thus:

On March 24, 2010, petitioner through counsel presented her second witness in the person of ___________ who testified to corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff as regard the behavior and attitude of the defendant buttressing petitioner’s claim about the psychological incapacity of respondent as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code. Her testimony may be stated in gist, viz:

On May 4, 2010, petitioner presented her last witness in the person of ____________, a Clinical Psychologist, who was presented as an expert witness in the field of clinical

Page 10 of 17

psychology. He identified his Clinical Psychological Report5 and his testimony6 would be substantially as follows:

That he is a Professor from the Psychology Department of University of San Carlos, Cebu City being clinical psychologist. In the course of his professional duties, he came across the person of the petitioner, ______________, for the purpose of conducting a psychological examination to evaluate the alleged psychological incapacity of the respondent in this case, _______________.

That as expert in said field, he came up with a conclusion, after conducting an exhaustive psychological evaluation, that the respondent suffers from a permanent and incurable personality disorder known as Anti-social Personality Disorder.

That he conducted his Psychological Report into writing consisting of seven (7) pages. That he administered interview and test on the petitioner and her witnesses, Lolita Rapales and a neighbor, and gathered that respondent exhibited behaviors symptomatic of an anti-social individual as shown by his extreme lack of concern, insensitivity, callousness, and apathy or lack of emotional belongingness to the members of his family. That his psychological disorder effectively hindered the respondent from performing his marital and filial obligation to his wife and children.

That his personality disorder became more pronounced during the marriage but, in fact, the same wasalready existing before the celebration of the marriage between the parties. That since the disorder is already very serious; it constituted already a threat to the marriage because the other members of the family will suffer from its

Page 11 of 17

consequences, which ultimately destroyed said marriage. That said personality disorder is permanent and incurable because the afflicted individual refuses to acknowledge that he has such mental affliction and would refuse any therapy.

That respondent’s personality disorder can be traced way back in his younger days within the dynamics of the family he came from. The he grew up with a vicious father and undisciplining mother. That respondent grew up a juvenile delinquent, a precursor of his anti-social personality disorder. That respondent was a wayward kid, spending his time with his peers, and drop-out from school. He merely strolled around town with no direction but whose purpose was only to meet his own needs. That he would yearn for comforts but would shirk away from any responsibility. That he same pattern in his younger days was exhibited by him during his marriage due to his personality disorder.

Nevertheless, he does not consider that petitioner; Janeth Mangle contributed to the development of the personality disorder of the respondent because it was already existing prior and on the day of the celebration of their marriage.That petitioner was very patient because despite the three(3) separation that happened, she still accepted the dependant into their family. That when a fourth separation happened, even the relatives of the respondent acknowledged the shortcoming and faults of their own kin. They even supports petitioner’s decision to sever and end a hopeless marriage.

On May 7, 2010, petitioner through counsel filed her Formal Offer of Exhibits which were admitted by the Court in its order dated July 8, 2010, thus;

Page 12 of 17

Exhibit “A” - Summons

Exhibit “B” -Notice of Appearance of the Solicitor General

Exhibit” C” - Authority given to the City Prosecutor

Exhibit “D” - The petition/ complaint for the nullity of marriage of the parties in this case

Exhibit E” - Certificate of Marriage

Exhibit “F” -Report of Collusion of Non-Collusion of parties

Exhibit “G” - Birth Certificate of

Exhibit “H” - Birth Certificate of

Exhibit “I” - Baptism Certificate of

Exhibit “J “& J-1” – Clinical Psychologist’s Report

From the judicious consideration of the evidence on record, the Court finds that petitioner succeeded to prove that respondent Jonie M. Mangle is psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations, being someone afflicted with a permanent, incurable and serious personality disorder known as Anti-Social Personality Disorder.

Psychological incapacity as defined by Ernesto L. Pineda in his book “The Family Code of the Philippines Annotated”, is a mental condition which perpetually prevents or incapacitates a person martially contracted to another voluntarily, from performing or complying with certain essential marital obligations, resulting in the failure to achieve the basic ends of marriage, which mental condition is serious, with roots antedating the marriage and is incurable.

Page 13 of 17

Respondent’s mental condition of leisurely spending most of his time with his friends, coming home late at night or even early morning of the following day and wasting his hard earned and inadequate salary for drinking sprees instead of giving it to his wife for the sustenance of his family, prevents him from performing his essential marital obligations.

As to the requirements of establishing psychological incapacity, as laid down in the case of Dimayuga- Laurena vs. Court of Appeals7, that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity (b) juridical antecedence and (c) incurability elaborated as follows:

Gravity- it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage;

Juridical Antecedence- it must be rooted in the part history of the party antedating the marriage although the overt manifestation may emerge only after the marriage;

Incurability- It must be incurable or even if it so, the cure is beyond the means of the party involved,

This Court believes that the foregoing were convincingly established and complied with by petitioner through her expert witness, Dr. Andres Suan Gerong. The Latter’s testimony is worthy of belief and credence that based from his expert opinion on the psychological profile of respondent Jonie Mangle, the latter is suffering from a personality disorders known as “ Antisocial Personality Disorder”. The presentation of his psychological report and his candid and persuasive explanation in open court based from a thorough and in-depth assessment of respondent’s psychological condition convinced this Court that respondent’s psychological malady is indeed grave severe and incurable.

Page 14 of 17

The testimony of the above-named three(3) witnesses, taken as a whole, show a disturbing pattern of insensitivity, callousness and apathy and lack of emotional belongingness of respondent who showed an utter lack of sense of appreciation of his marital status with petitioner. Dr. Gerong candidly explained that such personality disorder of respondent can be traced to his childhood and adolescent because the afflicted person himself would refuse any measure of reformation. The evidence of the petitioner shows that even during respondent’s younger days, respondent was already a wayward kid, spending his time with his peers, a drop out from school and was lazy to attend school. His sense of direction was only to meet his own needs without the concomitant responsibilities.

The evidence on record no doubt shows that respondent lacks any sense of responsibility and respect to his wife. He was totally devoid of any paternal instinct because he never had second thoughts of abandoning his children and never thought of providing them of moral, emotional and financial support. Petitioner’s evidence as a whole would really support her claim that respondent is indeed psychologically incapacitated to comply with his marital obligations especially those provided by law under Article 68 and 70 of the Family Code, which provided:

“Art. 68. The husband and wife are obliged to live together, observed mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.”

“Art. 70. The spouses are jointly responsible for the support of the family. The expenses for such support and other conjugal obligation shall be paid from the community property and, in the absence thereof, from the income of fruits of their separate properties. In case of insufficiency or

Page 15 of 17

absence of said income or fruits, such obligation shall be satisfied from their separate properties.

These provision demand for the personal commitment of each spouses in a marriage to sincerely carry-out the obligation demanded of the marriage, that is: to live together, to observe mutual love, respect and fidelity to comply. He failed to appreciate these personal obligations of married man because of this psychological incapacity to appreciate them. “The non- performance of said obligations by the spouse endows the other certain causes of action such as declaration of nullity of the marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines.”8

Given the avowed State interest in promoting marriage as the foundation of the family, which in turn serves as the foundation of the nation, there is a corresponding interest for the State to defend against marriage illeequipped to promote family life.9

Considerably as well, applying the ruling of no less than the Supreme Court in Yu vs. Yu10, that “by petitioner’s filing of the case for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Pasig RTC he automatically submitted the issue of custody of Bianca as an incident thereof”, this Court resolves that the custody of the children, and shall belong to the herein petitioner,.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the marriage between petitioner, celebrated on August 15, 1997 as NULL and VOID ab intio on the ground of psychological incapacity on the part of respondent, that renders him unfit to discharge his essential marital obligation, pursuant to Article 36 of the Family Code with all the effects provided by law.

Page 16 of 17

Custody of this three (3) children shall remain with petitioner without prejudice to the visitation of the respondent. Furthermore, the parties are jointly responsible for the support of their children.

SOORDERED.

Page 17 of 17