The Supreme Court of the Philippines reiterated that not all marital difficulties qualify as grounds for declaring a marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity. In Go-Yu v. Yu, the Court emphasized that psychological incapacity must be a grave, incurable condition existing at the time of marriage, preventing a party from understanding and fulfilling marital obligations. Dissatisfaction, incompatibility, or a change of heart does not equate to such incapacity, safeguarding the constitutionally protected institution of marriage.

When ‘Til Death Do Us Part’ Doesn’t Hold: Proving Psychological Incapacity

Mary Christine Go-Yu sought to nullify her marriage to Romeo Yu, claiming she suffered from Narcissistic Personality Disorder, rendering her psychologically incapable of fulfilling her marital duties. After Go-Yu presented her evidence, Yu filed a Demurrer to Evidence, arguing that the evidence presented was insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially denied Yu’s demurrer, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, finding Go-Yu’s evidence lacking. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to determine whether the CA correctly ruled that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Yu’s demurrer.

The central legal question was whether Go-Yu presented sufficient evidence to prove her psychological incapacity, a ground for nullifying a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. Psychological incapacity, as defined in Philippine jurisprudence, is not simply the inability to perform marital obligations, but a deep-seated, permanent condition that existed at the time of the marriage. The Supreme Court, in Republic v. Molina, established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, emphasizing the need for medical or clinical identification of the root cause, its existence at the time of marriage, and its incurable nature. The condition must be so severe that it prevents the person from understanding or fulfilling the essential obligations of marriage.

The Court carefully scrutinized the evidence presented by Go-Yu, particularly the psychological report prepared by her expert witness, Dr. Agnes S. Borre-Padilla. The Court noted that the report lacked detailed factual narration and relied heavily on Go-Yu’s self-serving accounts. Citing Suazo v. Suazo, the Court highlighted the importance of a comprehensive examination to evaluate a party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. In this case, the methodology employed by the psychiatrist did not meet the required depth and comprehensiveness, making the report unreliable as a basis for concluding psychological incapacity. The Court found that Go-Yu’s own testimony and actions contradicted her claim of incapacity. Her expressions of concern about their sexual relationship, her desire to have children, her adjustments to their financial difficulties, and her management of the household demonstrated an understanding and fulfillment of marital obligations.

Building on this, the Court emphasized the stringent requirements for proving psychological incapacity. The petitioner must demonstrate that the incapacity is grave, existed at the time of marriage, and is incurable. Moreover, the root cause must be medically or clinically identified and clearly explained. In Go-Yu’s case, the evidence fell short of meeting these requirements. The Court also addressed the issue of judicial courtesy, a principle where a lower court suspends proceedings when a higher court is considering a related issue. In this case, the RTC correctly adhered to this principle because there was a strong possibility that the issue raised before the CA would be rendered moot as a result of the continuation of the proceedings in the lower court. This approach contrasts with a situation where continuing the proceedings would not impact the higher court’s decision.

The Supreme Court discussed the nature of a demurrer to evidence, which challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s evidence to sustain a verdict. The Court reiterated that the grant or denial of a demurrer is within the trial court’s discretion, and its ruling will not be disturbed absent grave abuse of discretion. The Court emphasized that the trial court must ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient evidence to support a verdict. The court stated,

“A demurrer to evidence is defined as ‘an objection or exception by one of the parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue.’ The demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a verdict of guilt.”

Considering these principles, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in denying Yu’s demurrer. The Court emphasized that the evidence presented by Go-Yu was insufficient to prove her psychological incapacity, as required by Article 36 of the Family Code and the guidelines established in Republic v. Molina. Therefore, the Court affirmed the CA’s decision to dismiss Go-Yu’s petition for declaration of nullity of marriage. The Supreme Court acknowledged Go-Yu’s frustration but clarified that an unsatisfactory marriage does not automatically qualify for nullification under Article 36. Psychological incapacity is not a tool to dissolve a marriage simply because the parties have grown apart or are incompatible.

In conclusion, Go-Yu v. Yu serves as a reminder of the high bar set for proving psychological incapacity as grounds for marriage nullity in the Philippines. It underscores the importance of presenting clear, convincing, and medically or clinically supported evidence to establish a grave and incurable condition that existed at the time of marriage. This case also clarifies the application of judicial courtesy and the standards for evaluating a demurrer to evidence in cases involving the nullity of marriage.

FAQs

What is the main legal principle in this case?	The case clarifies the requirements for proving psychological incapacity as grounds for declaring a marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code. It emphasizes that mere marital difficulties or incompatibility do not suffice; a grave, incurable condition existing at the time of marriage must be proven.
What evidence is required to prove psychological incapacity?	The root cause of the incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision. It must also be shown to have existed at the time of the marriage and to be permanent or incurable.
What is a demurrer to evidence?	A demurrer to evidence is a motion filed by the defendant after the plaintiff has presented their evidence, arguing that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. If granted, it results in the dismissal of the case.
What is the significance of the Republic v. Molina case?	Republic v. Molina established guidelines for determining psychological incapacity, emphasizing the need for medical or clinical identification of the root cause, its existence at the time of marriage, and its incurable nature. These guidelines are widely used in Philippine courts.
What is judicial courtesy?	Judicial courtesy is the principle where a lower court suspends proceedings when a higher court is considering a related issue, to avoid potentially conflicting decisions. However, this is applied only when there’s a strong probability the higher court’s decision would be moot if the lower court continues.
Can self-serving statements be used to prove psychological incapacity?	No, self-serving statements alone are insufficient to prove psychological incapacity. The court requires credible and objective evidence, such as expert testimony and medical records, to support the claim.
What is Narcissistic Personality Disorder?	Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a mental condition characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others. However, having this disorder does not automatically equate to psychological incapacity.
Does an unsatisfactory marriage automatically qualify for nullification?	No, an unsatisfactory marriage does not automatically qualify for nullification under Article 36 of the Family Code. Psychological incapacity must be a serious, pre-existing condition, not simply a result of marital difficulties or incompatibility.
What are the essential marital obligations?	The essential marital obligations include living together, observing mutual love, respect and fidelity, rendering mutual help and support, providing for the support of the family, and managing the household. These obligations are outlined in Articles 68 to 71 and 220, 221 and 225 of the Family Code.

Go-Yu v. Yu reinforces the importance of the constitutional protection of marriage and the stringent requirements for declaring a marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity. Parties considering this legal avenue must be prepared to present compelling evidence that meets the high standards set by Philippine law and jurisprudence.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: MARY CHRISTINE C. GO-YU, VS. ROMEO A. YU, G.R. No. 230443, April 03, 2019