RAMON DL. DE BELEN, PETITIONER-APPELLEE, VS. HAYDEE RIZA DE BELEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE,

De Belen versus De Belen

The Case

This is the case of De Belen versus De Belen. Ramon De Belen sought before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, the declaration of absolute nullity of his marriage to Haydee Riza De Belen on the ground of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The Republic of the Philippines, through the Office of the Solicitor General, opposed the petition as oppositor, and when the trial court granted the nullity, the Republic brought the matter to the Supreme Court. The case matters because it is a compact restatement of the strict standard for psychological incapacity: that infidelity, irritability, aggressiveness, and a clash of personalities are not enough, and that a psychological report built on secondhand information from one side cannot carry the burden of proof.

Procedural History

Ramon filed his petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage before the Regional Trial Court of Gapan City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 34. The Office of the Solicitor General entered its appearance for the Republic and deputized the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor of Nueva Ecija to assist in the hearings. Pre-trial was conducted despite the absence of Haydee and her counsel, trial on the merits proceeded, and Haydee never appeared.

On October 26, 2009, the trial court rendered a decision dismissing the petition for lack of merit, holding that the totality of the evidence failed to establish a serious personality disorder amounting to psychological incapacity. Ramon moved for reconsideration, and in an Order dated April 14, 2010, the trial court granted the motion, set aside its decision, and declared the marriage void, ordering the civil registrars to cancel the marriage certificate. The Republic moved for reconsideration, which the trial court denied in an Order dated July 19, 2010. The Republic then appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as its lone error that the trial court erred in declaring the marriage void ab initio when Ramon failed to establish all the essential requisites of psychological incapacity.

Facts

Ramon and Haydee met in 1993 in Jaen, Nueva Ecija, where Ramon was a nursing student and Haydee was working as a guest relations officer in a night club in Makati City. After a two-week courtship they became sweethearts, and Haydee soon became pregnant, so they lived together without the benefit of marriage in the house of Ramon's parents. Ramon continued his studies while Haydee stayed home. She complained of how Ramon's parents treated her, criticized his family, and quarreled violently with Ramon. At her insistence, Ramon's parents rented a place for the couple, but since Ramon was still studying they remained dependent on his parents, and Haydee hurled invectives against his family. On one occasion she held a knife and threatened to kill Ramon, and when his mother intervened, she drove the mother out of the house.

On February 23, 1996, Ramon and Haydee were married before the municipal mayor of Jaen, Nueva Ecija. Ramon later worked at the National Irrigation Administration. Haydee worked in a fast food restaurant, complained of low wages, sold Avon products, and failed to remit her collections, which Ramon paid. In 2003, without consulting Ramon, she announced she was leaving for Japan to work as a club entertainer, leaving behind their three children. She stayed six months, avoided Ramon's calls, and came home cold to him. During a sexual congress she repeatedly uttered the name Satosi, whom she admitted was her Japanese lover who had helped her financially. Two weeks later Satosi arrived, and Haydee announced she would meet him at the airport and told Ramon to share her with Satosi.

In February 2004, Haydee took their three children to Tacloban City without Ramon's consent. Ramon traveled with them to dissuade her, but she decided to live separately from him. Ramon returned to Jaen, and that was the last time he saw Haydee and their children. In 2007 he filed the petition for nullity. At trial, the expert witness Dr. Anselmo D. Lupdag testified on Haydee's personality, but his assessment was based on descriptions given by Ramon and Ramon's friends, Joselito Hernandez and Lennie C. Ocampo; he never examined Haydee.

Issues

• Whether or not the totality of the evidence established that Haydee was psychologically incapacitated under Article 36 of the Family Code to comply with the essential marital obligations.
• Whether or not Haydee's sexual infidelity, irritability, aggressiveness, and lack of remorse constitute psychological incapacity within the contemplation of Article 36.
• Whether or not the psychological report of Dr. Lupdag, based on secondhand information from Ramon and his friends, can support a declaration of nullity.

Applicable Provisions

Article 36 of the Family Code provides:

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 Ramon, and the Court measures the evidence against its requirement of an incapacity existing at the time of celebration.

Article 68 of the Family Code, cited by the Court in describing the basic marital obligations, provides:

The husband and wife shall live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

The Court uses these covenants to test whether Haydee was truly incognitive of her marital duties.

Article 55 of the Family Code, referred to by the Court on sexual infidelity, provides in its pertinent part:

A petition for legal separation may be filed on any of the following grounds: Sexual infidelity or perversion.

The Court uses this to distinguish infidelity as a ground for legal separation, not for nullity under Article 36.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the evidence did not establish psychological incapacity. Psychological incapacity refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage, a mental incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. Haydee was not truly incognitive of her obligations; she had insight into her behavior and fulfilled responsibilities concerning their children. Her discourtesy, complaints about finances, unkind words, and occasional violence were not shown to be a malady or disorder rooted in a debilitating psychological condition, and the report failed to explain how such behavior existed before the marriage.

On the second issue, the Court held that infidelity and a clash of personalities do not amount to psychological incapacity. As the Court put it, quoting Perez-Ferraris versus Ferraris:

As all people may have certain quirks and idiosyncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personality disorders, there is hardly a doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of psychological incapacity to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to marriage.

The Court stressed that mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities is not psychological incapacity; it is not enough that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities, they must be shown incapable of doing so due to psychological illness. Haydee's sexual infidelity is a ground for legal separation under Article 55, not for nullity under Article 36. Marriage is an inviolable institution, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage.

On the third issue, the Court held that Dr. Lupdag's assessment was based merely on descriptions communicated by Ramon and his friends; he never conducted any psychological examination on Haydee and had no personal knowledge of the facts relayed to him. His conclusions rested on pure suppositions and secondhand information fed to him by one side, and could not support the declaration of nullity.

Doctrine

Psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code means a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage, a mental incapacity causing the party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants. It is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to marriage. Mere irreconcilable differences, conflicting personalities, irritability, aggressiveness, and sexual infidelity do not constitute psychological incapacity; infidelity is a ground for legal separation under Article 55. The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff, and any doubt is resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage. A psychological report based on secondhand information from one side, without any examination of the spouse, is insufficient to prove psychological incapacity.

Disposition

The Supreme Court granted the Republic's appeal, reversed and set aside the trial court's Orders of April 14 and July 19, 2010, and dismissed the petition for declaration of absolute nullity of marriage; the Republic won.

Remember This

Memorize this line: psychological incapacity is confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to marriage, and infidelity is a ground for legal separation, not nullity. Examiners use this case to test the strict standard for Article 36 and the insufficiency of a psychological report based on secondhand information from one side.