Camacho-Reyes v. Reyes | 18 August 2010 | G.R. No.

185286

Petitioner: Ma. Soccoro Camacho-Reyes

Respondent: Ramon Reyes
Ponente: Nachura, J.

Petition for review on certiorari assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals which reversed the
decision of Regional Trial Court Branch 89 in Quezon City

FACTS:
1972: Maria Soccoro met Ramon at the University of the Philippines Diliman, both were then 19
years old
 Casual acquaintanceship developed into a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship
 Both resided in Mandaluyong, saw each other every day and drove home together
 Respondent held a job in their family business, the Aristocrat Restaurant
 Respondent has a habit of cutting classes and taking marijuana
1974: Respondent dropped out, continued to work for Aristocrat
1975: Petitioner finished university studies (AB Sociology)
5 December 1976: Petitioner, who was then five months pregnant and employed at the Popular
Center Foundation, married respondent
 Lived with respondent’s family in Mandaluyong
 All living expenses were shouldered by respondent’s parents
 Couple’s salary were spent solely for their personal needs
 Respondent gave petitioner a monthly allowance of P1,500
22 March 1977: First child was born, financial difficulties stared
 Monthly allowance from respondent stopped after he resigned due to slow
advancement within the family business
 Respondent ventured into trading seafood in the province to supply hotels and
restaurants, which took him away from his family for days without communication
 Petitioner suggested they live separately from her in-laws, which furthered financial
difficulties
 Respondents business floundered, tried managing a fishpond in Mindoro but was also
unsuccessful hence the sporadic allowance given to petitioner
 Respondent did not exert efforts to remain in touch with family while in Mindoro
1979: Spouses moved in with petitioner’s mother, but they only became more estranged
 Petitioner continued to carry burden of supporting a family not just financially, but in
most aspects as well
1985: Petitioner, who previously suffered a miscarriage, gave birth to their third son
 Respondent was then in Mindoro and did not even inquire on the health of either the
petitioner or the newborn
 A week later, respondent arrived in Manila, acting nonchalantly while playing with the
baby, with no attempt to find out how the hospital bills were settled
1989: Respondent’s fishpond business stopped operations due to financial problems
 Though without means to support his family, respondent refused to work
 Engaged in scrap paper and carton trading but also failed; this added to the debt of the
spouses which eventually led to the deterioration of their relationship
1996: Petitioner found out respondent was having an extra-marital affair
- One of the last straws for petitioner was when she underwent surgical operation for
removal of cyst, but respondent remained unconcerned
 - Petitioner asked respondent’s siblings to intervene to save their marriage, but siblings
“waved the white flag” on respondent
- Adolfo Reyes, respondent’s elder brother and his spouse tried to invite petitioner and
respondent to counseling sessions but respondent was uncooperative
1997: Adolfo brought his brother to Dr. Natividad Dayan for psychological assessment, but he
resisted
 Petitioner asked respondent to move out of their house
 Relationship with petitioner nor with his children did not improve
2001: Petitioner filed petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC, alleging the
latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essential marital obligations under Article 36 of the
Family Code
 Respondent denied allegations he was psychologically incapacitated, said he was not
remiss in performing his obligations as father and spouse
 RTC granted petition on the ground of psychological incapacity after trial where two
clinical psychologists, Dr. Dayan and Dr. Estrella Magno, and psychiatrist Dr. Cecilia
Villegas presented evidence
 Court of Appeals, voting 3-2 reversed RTC ruling and declared marriage valid and
subsisting
Petitioner appealed to SC

ISSUE: WON marriage between parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties’ psychological
incapacity, as provided in Art. 36

HELD: Petition granted, marriage is declared null and void under Art. 36 of FC based only on
respondent’s psychological incapacity

RATIO:
 Cannot subscribe to the CA ruling that psychological incapacity of respondent was not
sufficiently established since Magno and Villegas was not able to examine the
respondent himself
 Santos v. CA was cited as jurisprudence on psychological incapacity to perform marital
obligations
1. Gravity
2. Juridical antecedence
3. Incurability
The incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the
party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the
marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the
means of the party involved.
 Three experts were one in diagnosing respondent with personality disorder
1. Villegas: For an intelligent person like the respondent, he may sincerely want to
be able to assume his duties and responsibilities as a husband and father, but
because of a severe psychological deficit, he was unable to do so
 Suffering from a Personality Disorder of the antisocial type
 SC: Lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent does not per
se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors, neither do their findings automatically
constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.
 1. Marriage constitutes only two persons; the totality of the behavior of the spouse
during cohabitation is generally witnessed by the other
2. Psychologists and psychiatrists’ assessment was not solely based on petitioner,
as the respondent’s son, siblings and in-laws, among others, also testified
3. Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim cited the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, which enumerated criteria for diagnosing personality disorder
4. Person afflicted with personality disorder will not necessarily have personal
knowledge thereo
 CA declared, based on Dayan’s findings, that psychological incapacity of respondent is
not incurable: WRONG
1. Recommendation for therapy does not automatically imply curabilility
2. Therapy aims to manage behavior
 Dayan categorically declared respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform
essential marital obligations
 Points of convergence and consistence in reports of three doctors:
1. Respondent does have problems
2. Problems include chronic irresponsibility, inability to recognize and work towards
providing needs of his family, several failed business attempts, substance abuse,
trail of unpaid money obligations
 Even without the experts’ conclusions, the narrative of events point to the conclusion
that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital
obligations (Art. 68 of Family Code)
 Respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability to perform the essential marital
obligations as shown by his:
1. Sporadic financial support
2. Extra-marital affairs
3. Substance abuse
4. Failed business attempts
5. Unpaid money obligations
6. Inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses
7. Criminal charges of estafa
 Petitioner’s alleged Inadequate Personality Disorder does not amount to psychological
incapacity under Art. 36