Rivo v. Rivo

 

Rivo v. Rivo

G.R. No. 210780

January 25, 2023

 

FACTS:

                In April 2005, the petitioner initiated a "Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage," asserting that the respondent lacked the psychological capacity for marital obligations, a condition present at the time of marriage though discovered post-marriage. During marriage, petitioner observed respondent's work priority, limited engagement with family, and unequal treatment of children. Respondent's store duties on Sundays led to neglect of family time, fatigue, and personal neglect. Petitioner admitted extramarital affairs, fathering children outside marriage, and a two-year family abandonment in 1989. On advice from clinical psychologist Dr. Natividad Dayan, the petitioner was diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder, while the respondent was diagnosed with Compulsive Personality Disorder, based on petitioner-provided information. Their marriage was characterized by Partner Relational Problems, predicted to cause ongoing misery and distress. The respondent countered claims of neglect, asserting her role as a devoted wife. She clarified ownership of the family's grocery store and maintained that the business contributed to the family's well-being. She refuted accusations of hygiene-related intimacy issues and filed a concubinage case against the petitioner. While admitting mistreatment of a child due to emotional turmoil from the petitioner's infidelity, the respondent acknowledged her actions and arranged temporary custody with her sister-in law, unaware that the petitioner had taken the child to live with his mistress. Lastly, the respondent underwent psychological evaluation by Dr. Nimia Hermilia C. De Guzman, which affirmed her psychological capacity to fulfill marital duties.

 

ISSUE:

                Whether or not the petition for declaration of nullity of petitioner’s marriage with respondent be granted.

 

HELD:

                No. The petitioner's argument hinges on expert witness testimonies of psychological incapacity, citing the Molina guidelines. However, recent jurisprudence, particularly Tan-Andal v. Andal, introduces nuanced parameters for assessing psychological incapacity. The court emphasizes that incapacity must exist at the time of marriage and stem from a durable aspect of one’s personality structure, one that was formed before the parties married. It also abandons the need for expert opinion, allowing proof through ordinary witness testimonies. The court scrutinizes petitioner's claims, finding insufficient evidence of pre-existing incapacity. His own actions, including attempts to reconcile, suggest awareness of marital obligations. Moreover, petitioner's reliance on his sister's testimony is deemed inadequate. The court rejects the claim that petitioner's childhood experiences influenced his incapacity, as these do not definitively correlate. Petitioner's dissatisfaction rather than psychological disorder is identified as the cause of his marital issues. His own admission points to irreconcilable differences rather than true incapacity. Thus, the court concludes that petitioner has not met the burden of proving psychological incapacity under the elevated standards set by Tan-Andal. Moreover, the court acknowledges respondent's fulfillment of marital duties and her active defense of the marriage's validity. Ultimately, the totality of evidence falls short of the clear and convincing threshold required to declare both parties psychologically incapacitated to fulfill marital obligations.