JOVALYN A. RETINO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. JACINTO A. VALLIDO, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE,

Retino versus Vallido

The Case

This is the case of Retino versus Vallido, a petition brought by Jovalyn Retino, the plaintiff-appellant, against her husband Jacinto Vallido, the defendant-appellee. The action is one for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The case matters because it is a compact illustration of how strictly the Supreme Court guards the presumption of validity of marriage: it shows that a marriage hurriedly entered into, never consummated by a common life, and followed by separate families on both sides is still not void unless the psychological incapacity is grave, rooted in the person before the wedding, and incurable.

Procedural History

Jovalyn filed her complaint for declaration of nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Urdaneta City, Pangasinan. Jacinto did not file an answer, but the trial court did not declare him in default, because the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages forbids a declaration of default in these cases. After pre-trial and trial, the trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, holding that Jovalyn had not discharged her burden of proving psychological incapacity. It also denied her motion for reconsideration. Jovalyn then elevated the matter to the Supreme Court by appeal, and the Court resolved it in the decision we now study.

Facts

Jovalyn and Jacinto both came from Aklan and met in their teens. They became sweethearts over the objection of Jovalyn's parents. Jovalyn became a nurse and was hired at a hospital in Oman. Three days before she was to leave, Jacinto hurriedly proposed marriage, and she agreed. They also agreed that the marriage would be secret and that the marriage contract would not be registered. They were married on December 6, 1991 before a judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City.

The two never lived together as husband and wife, because Jovalyn immediately left for Oman. From then on they never communicated and never saw each other again. After four years without any word from Jacinto, and believing her marriage to him was not registered, Jovalyn married Raquelito Morales in 1995, and bore him a son.

While processing her papers for Canada, Jovalyn was required to submit a Certificate of No Marriage. When she applied for one, she was surprised to learn that her marriage contract with Jacinto had in fact been registered. Inquiring from Jacinto's relatives, she learned that he was also married to another woman and had two children by her. Jovalyn then filed the complaint, alleging that she and Jacinto were both psychologically incapacitated to perform the requisites of marriage, since they could no longer live together, care for, and support each other, having their own families. A psychological evaluation report was presented in evidence, and the psychologist was no longer made to testify. The trial court still dismissed the complaint, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

• Whether or not the marriage contracted by Jovalyn and Jacinto could be declared null and void on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
• Whether or not the psychological evaluation report and the evidence presented sufficiently established a grave, antecedent, and incurable psychological incapacity existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

Applicable Provisions

Article 36 of the Family Code provides:

Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.

This is the sole ground invoked by Jovalyn, and the Court measures her evidence against its exact terms, requiring an incapacity existing at the time of the celebration.

Article 68 of the Family Code defines the essential marital obligations that the incapacity must relate to:

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

The Court uses this provision to identify the obligations the parties must be shown incapable of assuming, not merely unwilling to perform.

Section 2 of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides:

Section 2. Petition for declaration of absolute nullity of void marriages. (d) What to allege. A petition under Article 36 of Family Code shall specially allege the complete facts showing the either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriages at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.

This provision requires the petition to allege the complete facts of the incapacity, which the Court finds Jovalyn's complaint failed to do.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the appeal is without merit. Article 36 contemplates a psychological incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations, and is not merely the difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations, or ill will. It consists of a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; the inability must refer to the essential obligations of marriage, namely the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, and the procreation and education of offspring; and the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. Proving that a spouse failed to meet his or her responsibility as a married person is not enough; it must be shown that he or she was incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.

On the second issue, the Court applied the guidelines laid down in the Molina case and summarized in the Santos case, requiring the incapacity to be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The Court found that Jovalyn's evidence showed only that the parties could not comply with their marital obligations not because of some psychological incapacity but because of difficulty due to distance, neglect, and refusal arising from their having families of their own. The psychological report, which diagnosed anti-social personality disorder in Jovalyn and histrionic and paranoid personality disorders in Jacinto, failed to trace the juridical antecedence of the incapacity and to relate it to an existing incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage. The facts on which the psychologist based her conclusions came from Jovalyn and her witnesses, and were therefore tainted, hearsay, and prejudiced. The study was not in-depth and comprehensive enough to warrant the conclusion of incapacity.

The Court closed with the governing presumption, quoting its own doctrine that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants, and that any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution.

Doctrine

A Bar candidate should retain these rules. First, the burden of proving the nullity of a marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity belongs to the plaintiff, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the validity of the marriage. Second, the incapacity under Article 36 must be characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability; it must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if it becomes manifest only later. Third, mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations, or ill will, is not enough; the incapacity must amount to a psychological illness that renders the party truly unable to assume the essential marital obligations under Article 68. Fourth, the petition must allege the complete facts of the incapacity as required by Section 2 of the Rule, and the expert report must trace the root cause to a psychological illness existing at the time of the wedding, based on a thorough and in-depth assessment.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, so Jacinto prevailed and the marriage of Jovalyn and Jacinto remains valid and subsisting.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that psychological incapacity must be grave, rooted in the person before the wedding, and incurable, and that mere difficulty, neglect, or refusal to perform marital obligations is not enough. Examiners like to use this case to test the Molina guidelines and the presumption of validity of marriage, especially where the parties have separated and formed separate families but the evidence still falls short of Article 36.