FLOYD ENGLE, BY HIS NEXT FRIEND E. WOMACK, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICTORIA DOE (ALIAS SILVESTRA PULGA), DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

By E. Womack, his next friend, it is alleged that Floyd Engle for about
two months has been an inmate of the St. Luke’s Hospital in the City of
Manila, where he was being treated for serious physical and mental
disorders by Doctor N. M. Saleeby, the Director of the Hospital. That
the defendant is a resident of the town of Tacloban, Province of Leyte,
but at present is somewhere in the City of Manila. That on or about
December 9, 1922, and in the hospital in the City of Manila, the
defendant, through the aid of her friends and agents, induced and
coerced Floyd Engle to go through some sort of a marriage ceremony with
her, knowing at the time that he, Floyd Engle, was out of his mind and
mentally deranged. That after the procuring of the certificate of the
so-called marriage, the defendant forthwith returned to Tacloban, and
endeavored to take possession of all of Engle’s property who was worth
at least P50,000. That the conspiracy of the defendant to marry him was
for the sole purpose of obtaining his property, and to defraud Engle
and his legitimate heirs of their property. That it is proper that the
court should appoint a guardian ad litem under the provisions of sections 116 and 117 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Wherefore, plaintiff prays that a special provisional guardian be
appointed for Engle, and that a preliminary injunction issue against
the defendant, restraining her from interfering with his property, and
that the alleged marriage be declared void ab initio, and for costs, and such other and further relief as may be deemed just and equitable.

For answer, the defendant made a general and specific denial of all the
material allegations of the complaint, and as a special defense,
alleges that for the last fourteen years she has been living maritally
under the same roof with the plaintiff by whom she has had six
children, the oldest of whom is twelve years of age. That on December
7th of last year, they were legally married. That in contracting the
marriage, plaintiff was in the full enjoyment of all of his mental
faculties, and that he entered into the contract freely, not only for
the purpose of making his status and that of the defendant and her
children legal, but to provide for her future in case of his death.
That induced by his alleged friends, the plaintiff has caused and
consented to the filing of the complaint, together with the application
for the appointment of a guardian of his person and property, to make
it appear that he is not of sound mind, when in truth and in fact he
was then and is now in the full enjoyment of all of his mental
faculties, and as a counterclaim, defendant alleges that when they
began living together, plaintiff did not have any property, and that
through her aid and assistance, he has amassed a considerable fortune,
which at present is not less than P200,000. That the defendant has
nothing with which to support herself and her children, and that the
P80 which at present the plaintiff is giving the defendant is not
sufficient for that purpose. That to properly support herself and the
children and to employ an attorney to defend the suit, she requires a
pension of P500 per month and the sum of P800 to be paid in advance on
account of attorney’s fees, and the defendant prays that she be
absolved from the complaint, and that the court make an order requiring
the plaintiff to make such allowances for her pension and attorney’s
fees.

Upon such issues, testimony was taken, and in a well written opinion the lower court found:

“That
plaintiff at the time of said marriage ceremony in St. Luke’s Hospital
was mentally deranged to such an extent that he was incapable of
entering into the marriage contract or any other contract, and that for
this reason the marriage ceremony was null and void.

“The
court also finds that the defendant is not entitled to anything under
her so-called counterclaim, and said. counterclaim is hereby
dismissed,” and rendered a decree to the effect that the marriage
between the plaintiff and the defendant was “illegal, null, and void ab initio, and without any legal effect as to plaintiff’s and defendant’s property rights, without costs to either party.”

The defendant appeals, contending:

“I.
The lower court erred in holding that the plaintiff was mentally
deranged to such an extent that he was incapable of entering into the
marriage contract, and therefore

“II. The lower court erred in declaring the marriage between plaintiff and defendant to be illegal, null, and void ab initio.”

JOHNS, J.:

Opposing counsel have submitted able and exhaustive briefs. The question submitted is largely one of fact.

October 18, 1922, Floyd Engle became an inmate of St. Luke’s Hospital
in the City of Manila with Dr. N. M. Saleeby as his physician. It
appears from the hospital records that at the time of his admission his
disease was defined as:

“Insanity, Delusional & Melancholic & Amebic Infection & Tertiary Syphilis“

He remained in the hospital under the care of Doctor Saleeby until some
time in March, 1923, when he was taken to Baguio, and upon his return
to Manila in June, he left for the United States. The marriage ceremony
between Engle and the defendant was performed in the hospital on
December 7, 1922. December 20, 1922, a petition for the appointment of
a guardian for him, alleging insanity, was filed in the Court of First
Instance of Manila, and on December 29, 1922, H. C. Powers was
appointed guardian of his person and J. V. House guardian of his
property. After the marriage Engle and the defendant never lived
together as husband and wife, and on the following day the defendant
left Manila and went back to Tacloban, Leyte, which was Engle’s former
residence, and made an effort to obtain possession of all of his
business and property.

The question presented is whether or
not at the time of the marriage Engle was of sound mind and mentally
capable of entering into a marriage contract. It will be noted that he
was admitted to the hospital October 18, 1922, and the nature of his
disease at the time of his admission was described in the hospital
records as: “Insanity, Delusional & Melancholic & Amebic Infection & Tertiary Syphilis,” and that his alleged marriage to the defendant took place on December 7, 1922, fifty days after that time.

It appears from his testimony that Doctor Saleeby is 54 years old, and
that he graduated from the University of New York Medical College in
1897, and, with the exception of four years, he has been engaged in the
active practice of his profession ever since, and that he was in charge
of St. Luke’s Hospital from March, 1907, to September, 1912, and from
March 1, 1921, to the present time. That during ail of the time that
Engle was in the hospital, he was under the personal charge of Doctor
Saleeby, who was his only physician, and who testifies:

“Q.
Will you state to the court what was his mental condition during all
the time that he was there; that is, from the time he entered the
hospital in October, 1922, up to the time he left in March, 1923?—A.
All the time he was under my care he was unable to exercise judgment or
express his will or decision definitely on any question of any
significance.

“Q. Will you state to the court whether or
not during all that time he had sufficient mentality to knowingly enter
into a contract of any kind?—A. He was absolutely unable to make any
decision of any kind, and was not fit to make a contract with any one
in any business transaction of any significance.

“Q. Was
the mental condition of Mr. Engle the same from the time he entered the
hospital up to the time he left, or did it suffer any change?—A. He was
at his worst at the time the priest visited him, and he kept in that
same condition until about a month prior to his discharge from the
hospital. At the time of his discharge he was in better condition than
when the priest visited him, but he was by no means in a fit mental
condition.

“Q. Will you state to the court whether or not
during the time that Mr. Engle was in the hospital he was sane or
insane?—A. Mr. Engle was insane from the date he entered the hospital
until he was discharged.”

The record is
conclusive that Doctor Saleeby was a fair and impartial witness, and
that he had no interest whatever in the result of this suit, and that
he was in daily attendance upon Engle from the time that he entered
until he left the hospital, covering a period of about five months. His
testimony is materially strengthened and corroborated by the evidence
of J. V. House, H. C. Powers, and E. Womack, who were lifelong personal
and intimate friends of Engle.

Opposed to this is the evidence of the defendant and the Reverend H. J. Parker, who performed the marriage ceremony.

It must be conceded that the defendant is a party in interest, and the
evidence of the Reverend Parker does not carry conviction. It is true
that he gave it as his opinion that Engle was mentally sound, but he
did not testify as to any fact or circumstance upon which he based his
opinion. AH of his answers to the questions propounded were more or
less categorical, and it appears that any knowledge which he had as to
the mental condition of Engle was confined and limited to the two
conversations which he had with him in the hospital and which were
about and concerning his marriage to the defendant. Much is also said
about the evidence of Miguel Romualdez, the present Mayor of the City
of Manila. But giving to it full force and credit, he did not see Engle
after the 5th of December, 1922, and the marriage was on December 7th,
and in answer to the question: “Did you notice any change or
difference, in the manner of his conversation and behavior on December
5, 1922, as compared to previous conversation with Engle?” he said, “I
have not noticed any change.” That may all be true, and yet Engle would
be of unsound mind. Be that as it may, the evidence for the defense is
not sufficient to overcome that of the plaintiff.

The records of the admission of Engle to the hospital are authentic, and were made when there was no thought of any litigation.

Section 10 of General Orders No. 68 provides, among other things, that
a marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at
the time of the marriage:

* * * * * *

“3.
That either party was of unsound mind, unless such party, after coming
to reason, freely cohabited with the other as husband or wife.

* * * * * *

“6.
That either party was, at the time of marriage, physically incapable of
entering into the married state, and such incapacity continues, and
appears to be incurable.”

Section 9 of Act No. 2122 provides:

“Within
the meaning of this Act, insanity is a manifestation, in language or
conduct, of disease or defect of the brain, or a more or less
permanently diseased or disordered condition of the mentality,
functional or organic, and characterized by perversion, inhibition, or
disordered function of the sensory or of the intellective faculties, or
by impaired or disordered volition.”

The
evidence is conclusive that at the time he was admitted to the hospital
Engle was of unsound mind, and it tends to show that his disease was
incurable. The fact that Engle was received and treated as an insane
patient on October 18, 1922, and that he was not discharged from the
hospital until March, 1923, throws the burden of proof upon the
defendant to establish the fact that he was of sound mind at the time
of the alleged marriage.

In Corpus Juris, volume 32, pages 757 and 758, it is said:

“(Sec. 561) 2. Continuance of Insanity—(a) In General.—General
insanity admitted, or once proved to exist, is presumed to continue;
and, if a recovery or a lucid interval is alleged to have occurred, the
burden to prove such allegation is on the person making it. * * *

“(Sec. 562) (b) Rebuttal of Presumption.—The
presumption that a person shown to be insane continued so is
rebuttable. In order to rebut the presumption of continuance of
insanity it is not necessary to show that the person has been restored
to the full possession of his mental vigor. However, when insanity has
once existed and it is sought to be proved that a subsequent act of its
subject was done in a lucid interval, sanity must be shown as of the
very time of the act in question; it is not sufficient to show a lucid
interval before and after the day of the act.”

Ruling Case Law, vol. 14, page 622, says:

“74. Burden of Proof in Civil Cases Generally.—In
all civil actions it is generally held that the burden of proof of
insanity rests upon him who alleges insanity, or seeks to avoid an act
on account of it, and it devolves upon him to establish the fact of
insanity by a preponderance of the evidence. If, however, a previous
state of insanity is proved, the burden of proof is then usually
considered to shift to him who asserts that the act was done while the
person was sane, though it has frequently been held that insanity which
is not shown to be settled or general as contradistinguished from a
mere temporary aberration or hallucination will not be presumed to
continue until the contrary is shown. A lucid interval is in its nature
temporary and uncertain in its duration, and there is no legal
presumption of its continuance.”

Applying
this rule, there is a failure of proof on the part of the defendant. It
is not sufficient to overcome the clear, positive and convincing
testimony for the plaintiff, that Engle was of unsound mind at the time
of the marriage. Again, on all questions of fact the lower court found
for the plaintiff, and its findings are entitled to some weight.

The judgment of the lower court is affirmed, without costs to either party. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Villamor, and Villa-Real, JJ., concur.