G.R. No.

185286 August 18, 2010

MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner,
vs.
RAMON REYES, Respondent.


Facts:

Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes and Ramon Reyes got married on December 5, 1976 when
the petitioner was already five months pregnant. The newlyweds lived with Ramons family and all
their living expenses were shouldered by Ramons parents. Salary of the spouses was spent solely
for the personal expenses of each. Initially, Ramon gave Socorro a monthly allowance of P1,500
from his salary. When their first child was born on March 22, 1977, financial difficulties started. A
year into their marriage, the monthly allowance stopped. Ramon resigned from his job in their family
business and decided to venture in different businesses, which took him away from his family.
Ramon however did not exert any effort to communicate with his family, even after Socorro gave birth
to their third child. As with Ramons business ventures, all did not succeed and added to the trail of
debt. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated.

In 1996, Socorro confirmed that Ramon was having an extra marital affair, and soon realized that
Ramon was not only unable to provide financially for their family, but he was, more importantly, remiss
in his obligation to remain faithful to her and their family. One last episode that sealed the fate of the
parties marriage was a surgical operation on Socorro for the removal of a cyst. Although his wife was
about to be operated on, Ramon remained unconcerned and unattentive.

In an attempt to salvage what was left in their marriage, Socorro approach Ramons siblings, who in
turn invited the parties to counseling sessions which still did not improve the relationship. Adolfo,
Ramons sibling, also brought Ramon to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to
"determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning." Ramon resisted and did not continue
with the clinical psychologists recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. Socorro then told Ramon
to move out of their house. The separation did not improve the relationship of the parties and
between Ramon and the children, thus the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage was file
before the RTC alleging the latters psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations
under Article 36 of the Family Code. This petition was granted by the RTC. A motion for
reconsideration was filed by Ramon before the RTC but denied the same. Ramon then appealed to
the Court of Appeals, which on its decision on May 23, 2007, stated that the decision of RTC was
reversed and set aside despite the testimony of experts regarding Ramons condition. Socorro then
appealed to the Supreme Court by reason that the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that both
parties are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of the marriage and
that the psychological incapacity was established in court by a preponderance of evidence.


Issue:

Whether or not the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties
psychological incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.


Held:

The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage
between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is
REINSTATED.

The appellate court is mistaken in declaring that the psychological incapacity of Ramon is not
incurable. A recommendation of therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general,
recommendations for therapy are given by clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage
behavior. In Kaplan and Saddocks textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging from
psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended.
In short, Dr. Dayans recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy does not necessarily
negate the finding that respondents psychological incapacity is incurable. Moreover, Dr. Dayan,
during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to
perform the essential marital obligations. As aptly stated by Justice Romero in her separate opinion in
the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina: The professional opinion of a
psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the persons entire life,
both before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give
professional opinions about a partys mental capacity at the time of the wedding.