G.R. No. 212717 , March 11, 2020
Republic of the Philippines, Petitioner, v. Ariel S. Calingo and Cynthia Marcellana-Calingo, Respondents.

FACTS

Ariel S. Calingo and Cynthia Marcellana-Calingo were married civilly on February 5, 1980, and had a church wedding on February 22, 1998. Ariel filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage, alleging Cynthia’s psychological incapacity. He testified that Cynthia exhibited aggressive behavior, was prone to gossiping and picking fights with neighbors, and was unfaithful, having affairs with two different neighbors. He left the conjugal home after Cynthia threw a knife at him. To support his petition, Ariel presented the psychological evaluation of Dr. Arnulfo Lopez, which diagnosed Cynthia with Borderline Personality Disorder with Histrionic Personality Disorder Features, allegedly rooted in a disorderly filial relationship involving physical abuse and abandonment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the petition, finding insufficiency of evidence to prove psychological incapacity. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declared the marriage null and void, and found Cynthia psychologically incapacitated based on her being “mabunganga” (talkative/gossipy), having extramarital affairs, and Dr. Lopez’s diagnosis. The Republic, through the Office of the Solicitor General, filed the present petition assailing the CA decision.

ISSUE

Whether or not the marriage between Ariel and Cynthia should be declared null on the basis of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, and DISMISSED the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for lack of merit. The Court held that the evidence presented failed to establish Cynthia’s psychological incapacity with the required characteristics of gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability. The psychological assessment of Dr. Lopez was deemed insufficient and not credible, as it was based primarily on the testimonies of Ariel and friends who had known Cynthia for only about thirty years and had no personal knowledge of her childhood or family background to establish juridical antecedence. Cynthia’s alleged sexual infidelity and being “mabunganga” were not satisfactory proof of psychological incapacity, as they were not shown to be manifestations of a disordered personality that completely incapacitated her from fulfilling essential marital obligations. The Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be more than just difficulty, refusal, or neglect in performing marital duties and must pertain to the most serious cases of personality disorders demonstrating utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning to the marriage.