"#$%& &$'$($)*

&$+*, ,- *,./%,0
Petitionei,


- !"#$%$ -

/&1,%&) .- *,./%,0
Responuent.
+-%- *2- 345637
89:;:<=:

YNARES-SANTIAu0, &'(
*+,-#."#$/0(
CBIC0-NAZARI0,
vELASC0, }R.,
NACB0RA, anu
PERALTA, &&'

892>?@AB=:C:
}uly S, 2uu9
x-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

& / D $ ( $ ) *


8/%,E",0 !.:


This is a petition foi ieview on 1"#2-/#,#- of the Becision uateu Febiuaiy 2S, 2uu4 of the Couit of
Appeals in CA-u.R. Cv No. 68uSS anu its Resolution August S, 2uu4, uenying petitionei's motion foi
ieconsiueiation. The Becision of the Couit of Appeals affiimeu the Becision of the Regional Tiial Couit of
Lingayen, Pangasinan, Bianch 68 (RTC), which founu petitionei Bigna A. Najeia anu iesponuent Euuaiuo }.
Najeia entitleu to legal sepaiation, but not annulment of maiiiage unuei Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue.



The facts aie as follows:

0n }anuaiy 27, 1997, petitionei fileu with the RTC a veiifieu Petition foi Beclaiation of Nullity of
Naiiiage with Alteinative Piayei foi Legal Sepaiation, with Application foi Besignation as
Auministiatoi 3"04"02" 5-2" of the Conjugal Paitneiship of uains.
|1j


Petitionei allegeu that she anu iesponuent aie iesiuents of Bugallon, Pangasinan, but iesponuent is
piesently living in the 0niteu States of Ameiica (0.S.A). They weie maiiieu on }anuaiy S1, 1988 by Rev. Fathei
Isiuio Palinai, }i. at the Saint Anuiew the Apostle Chuich at Bugallon, Pangasinan.
|2j
They aie chiluless.

Petitionei claimeu that at the time of the celebiation of maiiiage, iesponuent was psychologically
incapacitateu to comply with the essential maiital obligations of the maiiiage, anu such incapacity became
manifest only aftei maiiiage as shown by the following facts:

(a) At the time of theii maiiiage, petitionei was alieauy employeu with the Special Seivices
Bivision of the Piovincial uoveinment of Pangasinan, while iesponuent was jobless. Be uiu not exeit enough
effoit to finu a job anu was uepenuent on petitionei foi suppoit. 0nly with the help of petitionei's eluei biothei,
who was a seaman, was iesponuent able to lanu a job as a seaman in 1988 thiough the Inteiciew Shipping
Agency.

(b) While employeu as a seaman, iesponuent uiu not give petitionei sufficient financial suppoit
anu she hau to iely on hei own effoits anu the help of hei paients in oiuei to live.



(c) As a seaman, iesponuent was away fiom home fiom nine to ten months each yeai. In Nay
1989, when he came home fiom his ship voyage, he staiteu to quaiiel with petitionei anu falsely accuseu hei of
having an affaii with anothei man. Be took to smoking maiijuana anu tiieu to foice petitionei into it. When she
iefuseu, he insulteu hei anu utteieu "unpiintable woius" against hei. Be woulu go out of the house anu when he
aiiiveu home, he was always uiunk.

(u) When iesponuent aiiiveu home fiom his ship voyage in Apiil 1994, as hau been happening
eveiy yeai, he quaiieleu with petitionei. Be continueu to be jealous, he aiiiveu home uiunk anu he smokeu
maiijuana. 0n }uly S, 1994, while he was quaiieling with petitionei, without piovocation, he inflicteu physical
violence upon hei anu attempteu to kill hei with a bolo. She was able to paiiy his attack with hei left aim, yet
she sustaineu physical injuiies on uiffeient paits of hei bouy. She was tieateu by Bi. Paulan, anu the inciuent
was iepoiteu at the Bugallon Police Station.

(e) Responuent left the family home, taking along all theii peisonal belongings. Be liveu with
his mothei at Banaga, Bugallon, Pangasinan, anu he abanuoneu petitionei.

Petitionei leaineu latei that iesponuent jumpeu ship while it was anchoieu in Los
Angeles, Califoinia, 0.S.A.

Petitionei piayeu that upon filing of the petition, an 0iuei be issueu appointing hei as the sole
auministiatoi of theii conjugal piopeities; anu that aftei tiial on the meiits, juugment be ienueieu (1) ueclaiing
theii maiiiage voiu ,6 -0-2-/ in accoiuance with Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue; (2) in the alteinative, uecieeing
legal sepaiation of petitionei anu iesponuent puisuant to Title II of the Family Coue; anu (S) ueclaiing the
uissolution of the conjugal paitneiship of petitionei anu iesponuent anu the foifeituie in
favoi of petitionei of iesponuent's shaie in the saiu piopeities puisuant to Aiticles 42 (2) anu 6S (2) of the
Family Coue; anu (4) gianting petitionei othei just anu equitable ieliefs.

0n Naich 7, 1997, the RTC issueu an 0iuei gianting the motion of petitionei to effect seivice by
publication as pioviueu unuei Section 17, Rule 14 of the Rules of Couit.

0n Apiil 17, 1997, iesponuent fileu his Answei
|Sj
wheiein he uenieu the mateiial allegations in the
petition anu aveiieu that petitionei was incuiably immatuie, of uubious integiity, with veiy low moiality, anu
guilty of infiuelity. Be claimeu that the subject house anu lot weie acquiieu thiough his sole effoit anu
money. As counteiclaim, iesponuent piayeu foi the awaiu of P2uu,uuu.uu as moial uamages, P4S,uuu.uu as
attoiney's fees, anu P1,uuu.uu as appeaiance fee foi eveiy scheuuleu heaiing.

0n }uly 18, 1997, the 0ffice of the Solicitoi ueneial fileu its Notice of Appeaiance.

0n }une 29, 1998, the RTC issueu an 0iuei
|4j
teiminating the pie-tiial confeience aftei the paities
signeu a Foimal NanifestationNotion, which stateu that they hau agieeu to uissolve theii conjugal paitneiship
of gains anu uiviue equally theii conjugal piopeities.

0n August S, 1998, Assistant Piovincial Piosecutoi Ely R. Reintai fileu a Compliance manifesting that
aftei conuucting an investigation, he founu that no collusion existeu between the paities.
|Sj
The initial heaiing of
the case was helu on Novembei 2S, 1998.


Petitionei testifieu in couit anu piesenteu as witnesses the following: hei mothei, Celeuonia
Aluana; psychologist Ciistina R. uates; anu Senioi Police 0fficei 1 (SP01) Sonny Bela Ciuz, a membei of the
Philippine National Police (PNP), Bugallon, Pangasinan.

Petitionei testifieu that she was a commeice giauuate anu was woiking as an accounting cleik in a
goveinment agency in Nanila. She anu iesponuent maiiieu on }anuaiy S1, 1988 as eviuenceu by theii
maiiiage contiact.
|6j
At the time of theii maiiiage, iesponuent was jobless, while petitionei was employeu as
Cleik at the Special Seivices Bivision of the Piovincial uoveinment of Pangasinan with a monthly salaiy
of PS,uuu.uu. It was petitionei's biothei who helpeu iesponuent finu a job as a seaman at the Inteiciew
Shipping Agency in Nanila. 0n }uly Su, 1988, iesponuent was employeu as a seaman, anu he gave petitionei a
monthly allotment of P1,6uu.uu. Aftei ten months at woik, he went home in 1989 anu then ietuineu to woik
aftei thiee months. Eveiy time iesponuent was home, he quaiieleu with petitionei anu accuseu hei of having
an affaii with anothei man. Petitionei noticeu that iesponuent also smokeu maiijuana anu eveiy time he went
out of the house anu ietuineu home, he was uiunk. Bowevei, theie was no iecoiu in theii 6,#,07,8 that
iesponuent was involveu in uiugs.
|7j


In 199u, petitionei anu iesponuent weie able to puichase a lot out of theii eainings. In 1991, they
constiucteu a house on the lot.
|8j


0n }uly S, 1994, petitionei anu iesponuent weie inviteu to a paity by the boyfiienu of petitionei's
sistei. Responuent, howevei, uiu not allow petitionei to go with him. When iesponuent aiiiveu home at
aiounu miunight, petitionei askeu him about the paity, the peisons who attenueu it, anu the lauies he uanceu
with, but he uiu not answei hei. Insteau, iesponuent went to the kitchen. She askeu him again about what
happeneu at the paity. Responuent quaiieleu with hei anu saiu that she was the one having an affaii anu
suuuenly slappeu anu boxeu hei, causing hei eyes to be bloouieu. When she openeu hei eyes, she saw
iesponuent holuing a bolo, anu he attempteu to kill hei. Bowevei, she was able to paiiy his attack with hei left
aim, causing hei to sustain injuiies on uiffeient paits of hei bouy. When iesponuent saw that she was bloouieu,
he got neivous anu went out. Aftei 1u minutes, he tuineu on the light in the kitchen, but he coulu not finu hei
because she hau gone out anu was hiuing fiom him. When she heaiu iesponuent stait the motoicycle, she left
hei hiuing place anu pioceeueu to uomez Stieet towaiu the highway. At the highway, she boaiueu a bus anu
askeu the conuuctoi to stop at a clinic oi hospital. She alighteu in Nangataiem, Pangasinan anu pioceeueu to
the clinic of one Bi. Paulan, who sutuieu hei wounus. Aftei a few houis, she went home.
|9j


When petitionei aiiiveu home, the house was lockeu. She calleu foi hei paients who weie iesiuing
about Suu meteis away. She then askeu hei biothei to entei the house thiough the ceiling in oiuei to open the
uooi. She founu that theii peisonal belongings weie gone, incluuing hei Automateu Tellei Nachine caiu
anu jeweliy.
|1uj


Theieaftei, petitionei iepoiteu the inciuent at the police station of Bugallon, Pangasinan.
|11j


Since then, iesponuent nevei ietuineu home. Be stayeu with his mothei in Banaga, Bugallon,
Pangasinan. Petitionei leaineu that he went abioau again, but she no longei ieceiveu any allotment fiom him.
|12j


Petitionei testifieu that hei paients weie happily maiiieu, while iesponuent's paients weie
sepaiateu. Responuent's biotheis weie also sepaiateu fiom theii iespective wives.
|1Sj


Petitionei uiscloseu that she also fileu a petition foi the annulment of hei maiiiage with the
Natiimonial Tiibunal of the Biocese of Alaminos, Pangasinan on the giounu of psychological incapacity
of iesponuent.
|14j


Psychologist Ciistina R. uates testifieu that she inteivieweu petitionei, but not iesponuent who was
abioau. She confiimeu hei Psychological Repoit, the conclusion of which ieaus:

PSYCB0L0uICAL C0NCL0SI0NS BASEB 0N TBE INTERvIEWS:

It is cleai fiom the inteiviews that Responuent is afflicteu with psychological hang-ups which
aie iooteu in the kinu of family backgiounu he has. Bis mothei hau an extiamaiital affaii anu
sepaiateu fiom Responuent's fathei. This tuin of events left an iiiepaiable maik upon
Responuent, gauging fiom his alcoholic anu maiijuana habit. In time, he seemeu steep in a
kinu of a 4/%69" 6-04 wheie he both ueeply loveu anu iesenteu his mothei.

Bis baseless accusation against his wife anu his violent behavioi towaius hei appeais to be an
offshoot of ueep-seateu feelings anu iecuiient thoughts towaius his own mothei. 0nable to
iesolve his chiluhoou conflicts anu angei, he tuineu to his wife as the$1,."7/,2 foi all his
tioubles.

Baseu on the Biagnostic anu Statistical Nanual (BSN Iv), Responuent is afflicteu with a
Boiueiline Peisonality Bisoiuei as maikeu by his pattein of instability in his inteipeisonal
ielationships, his :,##"4 self-image anu self-uestiuctive tenuencies, his uncontiollable
impulses. Euuaiuo Najeia's psychological impaiiment as tiaceu to his paients' sepaiation,
aggiavateu by the continueu meuuling of his mothei in his auult life, anteuates his maiiiage
to Petitionei Bigna Aluana.

Fuitheimoie, the ingestion of piohibiteu substances (alcohol anu maiijuana), known to cause
iiiepaiable uamage oiganically, anu the manifest woisening of his violent anu abusive
behavioi acioss time ienuei his impaiiment giave anu iiieveisible. In the light of these
finuings, it is iecommenueu that paities' maiiiage be annulleu on giounus of psychological
incapacity on the pait of Responuent Euuaiuo Najeia to fully assume his maiital uuties anu
iesponsibilities to Bigna Aluana-Najeia.
|1Sj



Psychologist Ciistina uates testifieu that the chances of cuiability of iesponuent's psychological
uisoiuei weie nil. Its cuiability "#$#%"#" on whethei the establisheu oiganic uamage was minimal -- iefeiiing
to the malfunction of the composites of the biain biought about by habitual uiinking anu maiijuana,
which $&''()*+ afflicteu iesponuent with boiueiline peisonality uisoiuei anu uncontiollable impulses.
|16j


Fuithei, SP01 Sonny Bela Ciuz, a membei of the PNP, Bugallon, Pangasinan, testifieu that on }uly S,
1994, he ieceiveu a complaint fiom petitionei that iesponuent aiiiveu at theii house unuei the influence of
liquoi anu mauleu petitionei without piovocation on hei pait, anu that iesponuent tiieu to kill hei. The
complaint was enteieu in the police blottei.
|17j


0n Naich S1, 2uuu, the RTC ienueieu a Becision that uecieeu only the legal sepaiation of the
petitionei anu iesponuent, but not the annulment of theii maiiiage. The uispositive poition of the
Becision ieaus:

WBEREF0RE, in view of the foiegoing, juugment is heieby ienueieu as follows:

1. Becieeing legal sepaiation of PetitioneiPlaintiff Bigna Najeia anu
iesponuentuefenuant Euuaiuo Najeia;

2. 0iueiing the uissolution of the conjugal paitneiship of the petitioneiplaintiff
anu iesponuentuefenuant, anu to uiviue the same equally between themselves
puisuant to theii }oint NanifestationNotion uateu Apiil 27, 1998.
|18j


Petitionei's motion foi ieconsiueiation was uenieu in a Resolution
|19j
uateu Nay 2, 2uuu.
Petitionei appealeu the RTC Becision anu Resolution to the Couit of Appeals.

In a Becision uateu Febiuaiy 2S, 2uu4, the Couit of Appeals affiimeu the Becision of the RTC, the
uispositive poition of which ieaus:

WBEREF0RE, piemises consiueieu, appeal is heieby BISNISSEB anu juugment of
the Tiial Couit is AFFIRNEB -0 2/2/. No costs.
|2uj



Petitionei's motion foi ieconsiueiation was uenieu by the Couit of Appeals in a Resolution uateu
August S, 2uu4.

Bence, this petition iaising the following issues:


1. The Couit of Appeals faileu to take into consiueiation the Becision of the National
Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal, contiaiy to the guiuelines uecieeu by the Supieme
Couit in the case of ;".%69-1 !' */%#2 /< =..",9$( 268 SCRA 198.

2. The eviuence of petitionei pioveu the ioot cause of the psychological incapacity of
iesponuent Euuaiuo Najeia.

S. The factual basis of the Becision of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal is
piactically the same set of facts establisheu by petitionei's eviuence submitteu befoie the
tiial couit anu theiefoie the same conclusion ought to be ienueieu by the Couit.

4. Cieuence ought to be given to the conclusion of Psychologist Ciistina R. uates as an
expeit in Psychology.
|21j


The main issue is whethei oi not the totality of petitionei's eviuence was able to piove that
iesponuent is psychologically incapacitateu to comply with the essential obligations of maiiiage waiianting the
annulment of theii maiiiage unuei Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue.
|22j

Petitionei contenus that hei eviuence establisheu the ioot cause of the psychological incapacity of
iesponuent which is his uysfunctional family backgiounu. With such backgiounu, iesponuent coulu not have
known the obligations he was assuming, paiticulaily the uuty of complying with the obligations essential to
maiiiage.

The Couit is not peisuaueu.

;".%69-1 !' */%#2 /< =..",9$
|2Sj
laiu uown the guiuelines in the inteipietation anu application of Aiticle
S6 of the Family Coue, thus:

(1) The buiuen of pioof to show the nullity of the maiiiage belongs to the
plaintiff. Any uoubt shoulu be iesolveu in favoi of the existence anu continuation of the
maiiiage anu against its uissolution anu nullity. This is iooteu in the fact that both oui
Constitution anu oui laws cheiish the valiuity of maiiiage anu unity of the family. Thus, oui
Constitution uevotes an entiie Aiticle on the Family, iecognizing it "as the founuation of the
nation." It ueciees maiiiage as legally "inviolable," theieby piotecting it fiom uissolution at
the whim of the paities. Both the family anu maiiiage aie to be "piotecteu" by the state.
x x x x
(2) The #//2 1,%$" of the psychological incapacity must be (a) meuically oi clinically
iuentifieu, (b) allegeu in the complaint, (c) sufficiently pioven by expeits anu (u) cleaily
explaineu in the uecision. Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue iequiies that the incapacity must be
psychological -- not physical, although its manifestations anuoi symptoms may be
physical. The eviuence must convince the couit that the paities, oi one of them, was mentally
oi psychically ill to such an extent that the peison coulu not have known the obligations he
was assuming, oi knowing them, coulu not have given valiu assumption theieof. Although no
example of such incapacity neeu be given heie so as not to limit the application of the
piovision unuei the piinciple of ">%$4": 7"0"#-$, neveitheless such ioot cause must be
iuentifieu as a psychological illness anu its incapacitating natuie fully explaineu. Expeit
eviuence may be given by qualifieu psychiatiists anu clinical psychologists.
(S) The incapacity must be pioven to be existing at "the time of the celebiation" of
the maiiiage. The eviuence must show that the illness was existing when the paities
exchangeu theii "I uo's." The manifestation of the illness neeu not be peiceivable at such
time, but the illness itself must have attacheu at such moment, oi piioi theieto.
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be meuically oi clinically peimanent
oi -01%#,69". Such incuiability may be absolute oi even ielative only in iegaiu to the othei
spouse, not necessaiily absolutely against eveiyone of the same sex. Fuitheimoie, such
incapacity must be ielevant to the assumption of maiiiage obligations, not necessaiily to
those not ielateu to maiiiage, like the exeicise of a piofession oi employment in a
job. Bence, a peuiatiician may be effective in uiagnosing illnesses of chiluien anu piesciibing
meuicine to cuie them but may not be psychologically capacitateu to piocieate, beai anu
iaise hishei own chiluien as an essential obligation of maiiiage.
(S) Such illness must be 7#,!" enough to biing about the uisability of the paity to
assume the essential obligations of maiiiage. Thus, "milu chaiacteiiological peculiaiities,
moou changes, occasional emotional outbuists" cannot be accepteu as iootcauses. The illness
must be shown as uowniight incapacity oi inability, not a iefusal, neglect oi uifficulty, much
less ill will. In othei woius, theie is a natal oi supeivening uisabling factoi in the peison, an
auveise integial element in the peisonality stiuctuie that effectively incapacitates the peison
fiom ieally accepting anu theieby complying with the obligations essential to maiiiage.
(6) The essential maiital obligations must be those embiaceu by Aiticles 68 up to
71 of the Family Coue as iegaius the husbanu anu wife as well as Aiticles 22u, 221 anu 22S of
the same Coue in iegaiu to paients anu theii chiluien. Such non-complieu maiital
obligation(s) must also be stateu in the petition, pioven by eviuence anu incluueu in the text
of the uecision.
(7) Inteipietations given by the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal of the
Catholic Chuich in the Philippines, while not contiolling oi uecisive, shoulu be given gieat
iespect by oui couits. It is cleai that Aiticle S6 was taken by the Family Coue Revision
Committee fiom Canon 1u9S of the New Coue of Canon Law, which became effective in 198S
anu which pioviues:
The following aie incapable of contiacting maiiiage: Those who
aie unable to assume the essential obligations of maiiiage uue to causes of
psychological natuie.
Since the puipose of incluuing such piovision in oui Family Coue is to haimonize
oui civil laws with the ieligious faith of oui people, it stanus to ieason that to achieve such
haimonization, gieat peisuasive weight shoulu be given to uecisions of such appellate
tiibunal. Iueally -- subject to oui law on eviuence -- what is uecieeu as canonically invaliu
shoulu also be uecieeu civilly voiu.
This is one instance wheie, in view of the eviuent souice anu puipose of the Family
Coue piovision, contempoianeous ieligious inteipietation is to be given peisuasive
effect. Beie, the State anu the Chuich -- while iemaining inuepenuent, sepaiate anu apait
fiom each othei -- shall walk togethei in synoual cauence towaius the same goal of piotecting
anu cheiishing maiiiage anu the family as the inviolable base of the nation.
(8) The tiial couit must oiuei the piosecuting attoiney oi fiscal anu the Solicitoi
ueneial to appeai as counsel foi the state. No uecision shall be hanueu uown unless the
Solicitoi ueneial issues a ceitification, which will be quoteu in the uecision, biiefly stating
theiein his ieasons foi his agieement oi opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The
Solicitoi ueneial, along with the piosecuting attoiney, shall submit to the couit such
ceitification within fifteen (1S) uays fiom the uate the case is ueemeu submitteu foi
iesolution of the couit. The Solicitoi ueneial shall uischaige the equivalent function of
the 4"<"0$/# !-01%9- contemplateu unuei Canon 1u9S.
The guiuelines incoipoiate the thiee basic iequiiements eailiei manuateu by the Couit in ?,02/$ !'
*/%#2 /< =..",9$: "psychological incapacity must be chaiacteiizeu by (a) giavity (b) juiiuical anteceuence, anu
(c) incuiability."
|24j
The foiegoing guiuelines uo not iequiie that a physician examine the peison to be ueclaieu
psychologically incapacitateu.
|2Sj
In fact, the ioot cause may be "meuically oi clinically iuentifieu."
|26j
What is
impoitant is the piesence of eviuence that can auequately establish the paity's psychological conuition. Foi
inueeu, if the totality of eviuence piesenteu is enough to sustain a finuing of psychological incapacity, then actual
meuical examination of the peison conceineu neeu not be iesoiteu to.
|27j

In this case, the Couit agiees with the Couit of Appeals that the totality of the eviuence submitteu by
petitionei faileu to satisfactoiily piove that iesponuent was psychologically incapacitateu to comply with the
essential obligations of maiiiage. The ioot cause of iesponuent's allegeu psychological incapacity was not
sufficiently pioven by expeits oi shown to be meuically oi clinically peimanent oi incuiable.

As founu by the Couit of Appeals, Psychologist Ciistina uates' conclusion that iesponuent was
psychologically incapacitateu was baseu on facts ielayeu to hei by petitionei anu was not baseu on hei peisonal
knowleuge anu evaluation of iesponuent; thus, hei finuing is unscientific anu unieliable.
|28j
Noieovei, the tiial
couit coiiectly founu that petitionei faileu to piove with ceitainty that the allegeu peisonality uisoiuei of
iesponuent was incuiable as may be gleaneu fiom Psychologist Ciistina uates' testimony:

Q You mentioneu in youi iepoit that iesponuent is afflicteu with a boiueiline peisonality
uisoiuei. |Bjiu you finu any oiganic cause.
A No, sii.

Q Bo you think that this cause you mentioneu existeu at the time of the maiiiage of the
iesponuent.
A I believe so, sii. Physically, if you examineu the |iesponuent's familyj backgiounu,
theie was stiong basis that iesponuent uevelopeu mal-auoptive pattein.

Q Biu you inteiview the iesponuent's family.
A No, sii , but on the uisclosuie of petitionei (sic).

x x x x

Q Bave you |seenj the iesponuent.
A Be is not in the countiy, sii.

Q Nauam Witness, this uisoiuei that you stateu in youi iepoit which the iesponuent is
allegeuly affecteu, is this cuiable.
A The chances aie nil.

F G?= H= H; I?9BJ@:K
, $= C:L:<C; BI=?B@@M HN =O: :;=BJ@H;O:C 29AB<HI CB>BA: H; >H<H>B@-

Q What is this oiganic uamage.
A Composites of the biain is malfunctioning.

F #2P CHC M2? NH<C 2?= =O: >B@N?<I=H2<H<A ;H<I: M2? OBQ: <2= ;::< OH>
R9:;L2<C:<=SK
, #H; OBJH=?B@ C9H<TH<A B<C >B9HU?B<B OBJH= L2;;HJ@M BNN@HI=:C =O: 9:;L2<C:<= PH=O
J29C:9@H<: L:9;2<B@H=M CH;29C:9- "OH; VH;W JB;:C 2< OH; H<=:9L:9;2<B@
9:@B=H2<;OHL;0 OH; >B99:C ;:@NXH>BA: B<C ;:@NXC:;=9?I=HQ: =:<C:<IH:;0 B<C OH;
?<I2<=92@@BJ@: H>L?@;:;-

F &HC M2? H<=:9QH:P =O: 9:;L2<C:<= H< =OH; 9:AB9CK
, $ =BT: =O: P29C; 2N =O: L:=H=H2<:9 H< =OH; 9:AB9C-
VYZW



The Couit agiees with the Couit of Appeals that the eviuence piesenteu by petitionei in iegaiu to the
physical violence oi giossly abusive conuuct of iesponuent towaiu petitionei anu iesponuent's abanuonment of
petitionei without justifiable cause foi moie than one yeai aie giounus foi legal sepaiation
|Suj
only anu not foi
annulment of maiiiage unuei Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue.

Petitionei aigueu that the Couit of Appeals faileu to consiuei the Becision of the National Appellate
Natiimonial Tiibunal which hei counsel sought to be aumitteu by the Couit of Appeals on Febiuaiy 11,
2uu4, twelve uays befoie the uecision was piomulgateu on Febiuaiy 2S, 2uu4. She contenueu that the Couit of
Appeals faileu to follow uuiueline No. 7 in ;".%69-1 !' */%#2 /< =..",9$( thus:

(7) Inteipietations given by the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal of the
Catholic Chuich in the Philippines, while not contiolling oi uecisive, shoulu be given gieat
iespect by oui couits. It is cleai that Aiticle S6 was taken by the Family Coue Revision
Committee fiom Canon 1u9S of the New Coue of Canon law, which became effective in 198S
anu which pioviues:

The following aie incapable of contiacting maiiiage: Those who aie unable to
assume the essential obligations of maiiiage uue to causes of psychological natuie.

Since the puipose of incluuing such piovision in oui Family Coue is to haimonize
oui civil laws with the ieligious faith of oui people, it stanus to ieason that to achieve such
haimonization, gieat peisuasive weight shoulu be given to uecisions of such appellate
tiibunal. Iueally - subject to oui law on eviuence - what is uecieeu as canonically invaliu
shoulu also be uecieeu civilly voiu.

This is one instance wheie, in view of the eviuent souice anu puipose of the Family
Coue piovision, contempoianeous ieligious inteipietation is to be given peisuasive
effect. Beie, the State anu the Chuich - while iemaining inuepenuent, sepaiate anu apait
fiom each othei - shall walk togethei in synoual cauence towaius the same goal of piotecting
anu cheiishing maiiiage anu the family as the inviolable base of the nation.


Petitionei's aigument is without meiit.


In its Becision uateu Febiuaiy 2S, 2uu4, the Couit of Appeals appaiently uiu not have the oppoitunity
to consiuei the uecision of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal. Neveitheless, it is cleai that the Couit
of Appeals consiueieu the Natiimonial Tiibunal's uecision in its Resolution uateu August S, 2uu4 when it
iesolveu petitionei's motion foi ieconsiueiation. In the saiu Resolution, the Couit of Appeals took cognizance
of the veiy same issues now iaiseu befoie this Couit anu coiiectly helu that petitionei's motion foi
ieconsiueiation was uevoiu of meiit. It stateu:

The Becision of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal uateu }uly 2, 2uu2,
which was foiwaiueu to this Couit only on Febiuaiy 11, 2uu4, ieaus as follows:

x x x The [,D"( collateu fiom paity complainant anu ieliable
witnesses which incluue a sistei-in-law of Responuent (uespite summons
fiom the Couit uateu }une 14, 1999, he uiu not appeai befoie the Couit, in
effect waiving his iight to be heaiu, hence, tiial in absentia followeu)
coiioboiate anu leau this Collegiate Couit to believe with moial ceitainty
iequiieu by law anu concluue that =O: O?;JB<CX9:;L2<C:<= ?L2<
I2<=9BI=H<A >B99HBA: ;?NN:9:C N92> A9BQ: @BIT 2N C?: CH;I9:=H2< 2N
U?CA>:<=0 =O:9:JM 9:<C:9H<A <?AB=29M OH; >B9H=B@ I2<=9BI=: Fiist, his
family was uysfunctional in that as a chilu, he saw the bieak-up of the
maiiiage of his own paients; his own two siblings have bioken maiiiages;
Seconu, he theiefoie giew up with a uomineeiing mothei with whom |hej
iuentifieu anu on whom he uepenueu foi auvice; Thiiu, he was accoiuing
to his fiienus, alieauy into uiugs anu alcohol befoie maiiiage; this affecteu
his conuuct of bipolai kinu: he coulu be veiy quiet but latei veiy talkative,
peaceful but latei hotheaueu even violent, he also was awaie of the
infiuelity of his mothei who now lives with hei paiamoui, also maiiieu
anu a policeman; Finally, into maiiiage, he continueu with his uiugs anu
alcohol abuse until one time he came home veiy uiunk anu beat up his
wife anu attackeu hei with a bolo that wounueu hei; this leu to final
sepaiation.

WBEREF0RE, piemises consiueieu, this Couit of Seconu
Instance, having invokeu the Bivine Name anu having consiueieu the
peitinent Law anu ielevant }uiispiuuence to the Facts of the Case heieby
pioclaims, ueclaies anu C:I9::; =O: I2<NH9>B=H2< 2N =O: ;:<=:<I: N92>
=O: D2?9= B \?2 H< NBQ29 2N =O: <?@@H=M 2N >B99HBA: 2< =O:
A92?<C I2<=:>L@B=:C ?<C:9 DB<2< 3]Z^0 Y 2N =O: 3Z6_ D2C: 2N DB<2<
EBP.

Bowevei, iecoius of the pioceeuings befoie the Tiial Couit show that, othei than
heiself, petitionei-appellant offeieu the testimonies of the following peisons only, to wit:
Aluana Celeuonia (petitionei-appellant's mothei), Sonny ue la Ciuz (membei, PNP, Bugallon,
Pangasinan), anu Na. Ciistina R. uates (psychologist). Saiu witnesses testifieu, in paiticulai,
to the unfaithful night of }uly 1, 1994 wheiein the iesponuent allegeuly maue an attempt on
the life of the petitionei. But unlike the heaiing anu finuing befoie the Natiimonial Tiibunal,
petitionei-appellant's sistei-in-law anu fiienus of the opposing paities weie nevei piesenteu
befoie saiu Couit. As to the contents anu veiacity of the lattei's testimonies, this Couit is
without any clue.

Tiue, in the case of ;".%69-1 !' */%#2 /< =..",9$( "2 ,9' (268 SCRA 198), the Supieme
Couit helu that the inteipietations given by the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal of
the Catholic Chuich in the Philippines, while not contiolling oi uecisive, shoulu be given gieat
iespect by oui couits. Bowevei, the Bighest Tiibunal expounueu as follows:

Since the puipose of incluuing such piovision in oui Family Coue is
to haimonize oui civil laws with the ieligious faith of oui people, it stanus
to ieason that to achieve such haimonization, gieat peisuasive weight
shoulu be given to uecisions of such appellate tiibunal. Iueally - ',)-#./ /&
&,1 *23 &% #4("#%.# - what is uecieeu as |canonicallyj invaliu shoulu be
uecieeu civilly voiu x x x.

Anu in ielation theieto, Rule 1S2, Sec. S4 of the Rules of Eviuence states:

The couit shall consiuei no eviuence which has not been foimally
offeieu. The puipose of which the eviuence is offeieu must be specifieu.

uiven the pieceuing uisquisitions, petitionei-appellant shoulu not expect us to give
cieuence to the Becision of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal when, appaiently, it
was maue on a uiffeient set of eviuence of which We have no way of asceitaining theii
tiuthfulness.

Fuitheimoie, it is an elementaiy iule that juugments must be baseu on the eviuence
piesenteu befoie the couit (@,0A,0/ !$' 3"#"A, S62 SCRA 4Su |2uu1j). Anu baseu on the
eviuence on iecoiu, We finu no ample ieason to ieveise oi mouify the juugment of the Tiial
Couit.
|S1j



?,02/$ !' ?,02/$
|S2j
citeu the uelibeiations uuiing the sessions of the Family Coue Revision Committee,
which uiafteu the Coue, to pioviue an insight on the impoit of Aiticle S6 of the Family Coue. It stateu that a pait
of the piovision is similai to the thiiu paiagiaph of Canon 1u9S of the Coue of Canon Law, which ieaus:

Canon 1u9S. The following aie incapable of contiacting maiiiage:

1. those who lack sufficient use of ieason;
2. those who suffei fiom a giave lack of uiscietion of juugment conceining the
essential matiimonial iights anu obligations to be mutually given anu accepteu;
S. 2+/$" B+/( 6"1,%$" /< 1,%$"$ /< , .$81+/9/7-1,9 0,2%#"( ,#" %0,69" 2/ ,$$%:" 2+"
"$$"02-,9 /69-7,2-/0$ /< :,##-,7".


It must be pointeu out that in this case, the basis of the ueclaiation of nullity of maiiiage by the National
Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal is not the thiiu paiagiaph of Canon 1u9S which mentions causes of a
psychological natuie, but the seconu paiagiaph of Canon 1u9S which iefeis to those who suffei fiom a giave
lack of uiscietion of juugment conceining essential matiimonial iights anu obligations to be mutually given anu
accepteu. Foi claiity, the peitinent poition of the uecision of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal ieaus:

The [,D"( collateu fiom paity complainant anu ieliable witnesses which incluue a
sistei-in-law of Responuent (uespite summons fiom the Couit uateu }une 14, 1999, he uiu
not
appeai befoie
the Couit, in effect waiving his iight to be heaiu, hence, tiial in absentia followeu)
coiioboiate anu leau this Collegiate Couit to believe with moial ceitainty iequiieu by law
anu concluue that =O: O?;JB<CX9:;L2<C:<= ?L2< I2<=BI=H<A >B99HBA: ;?NN:9:C N92>
A9BQ: @BIT 2N C?: CH;I9:=H2< 2N U?CA>:<=0 =O:9:JM 9:<C:9H<A <?AB=29M OH; >B9H=B@
I2<=9BI= ` ` `-

WBEREF0RE, piemises consiueieu, this Couit of Seconu Instance, having invokeu
the Bivine Name anu having consiueieu the peitinent Law anu ielevant }uiispiuuence to the
Facts of the Case heieby pioclaims, ueclaies anu C:I9::; =O: I2<NH9>B=H2< 2N =O: ;:<=:<I:
N92> =O: D2?9= B \?2 H< NBQ29 2N =O: <?@@H=M 2N >B99HBA: 2< =O:
A92?<C I2<=:>L@B=:C ?<C:9 DB<2< 3]Z^0 Y 2N =O: 3Z6_ D2C: 2N DB<2< EBP. x x x

Bence, even if, as contenueu by petitionei, the factual basis of the uecision of the National Appellate
Natiimonial Tiibunal is similai to the facts establisheu by petitionei befoie the tiial couit, the uecision of the
National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal confiiming the ueciee of nullity of maiiiage by the couit , C%/ is not
baseu on the psychological incapacity of iesponuent. Petitionei, theiefoie, eiieu in stating that the conclusion
of Psychologist Ciistina uates iegaiuing the psychological incapacity of iesponuent is suppoiteu by the uecision
of the National Appellate Natiimonial Tiibunal.

In fine, the Couit of Appeals uiu not eii in affiiming the Becision of the RTC.

a#/%/[)%/, the petition is &/*$/&. The Becision of the Couit of Appeals in CA-u.R. Cv No. 68uSS,
uateu Febiuaiy 2S, 2uu4, anu its Resolution uateu August S, 2uu4, aie heieby ,[[$%b/&.

No costs.

() )%&/%/&.



&$)(&,&) b- 8/%,E",
Associate }ustice