REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

NATIONAL CAPITAL JUDICIAL REGION

REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
BRANCH 24
CITY OF CAGAYAN

OLIVIA DURAN TAVACO

Petitioner,

-versus- JDRC Case No. C-22632

ORLANDO OLIVER ANDRES

Respondent.
x------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18, Cagayan City, dated
October 30, 2014, which made final and absolute and that the said marriage was
thereby dissolved.

Petitioner Olivia D. Tavaco and respondent Orlando O. Andres were married at

the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on May 30, 1990 (Exh. A).

On August 29, 2014, petitioner filed before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 18,
Cagayan City, a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to private respondent
on the ground of psychological incapacity of the latter. She alleged that from the time of
their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, private respondent failed to perform
his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household,
devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. She averred that
private respondent was irresponsible, immature and unprepared for the duties of a
married life.

THE PETITION

Jane now comes to us via the present petition to challenge and seek the reversal
of the CA ruling based on the following arguments:

C ralaw1. The Court of Appeals went beyond what the law says, as it totally
disregarded the legal basis of the RTC in declaring the marriage null and void Tuason v.
Tuason (256 SCRA 158; to be accurate, should be Tuason v. Court of Appeals) holds
that "the finding of the Trial Court as to the existence or non-existence of petitioners
psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us (the
Supreme Court); petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the trial courts factual findings
and evaluation of the testimonies of private respondents witnesses vis-à-vis petitioners
defenses are clearly and manifestly erroneous";
 2. Article 36 of the Family Code did not define psychological incapacity; this
omission was intentional to give the courts a wider discretion to interpret the term
without being shackled by statutory parameters. Article 36 though was taken from
Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which gives three conditions that would
make a person unable to contract marriage from mental incapacity as follows:

"1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage:

(1) who lack the sufficient use of reason;

(2) who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential
matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted;

(3) who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due
to causes of a psychic nature.cra|aw"

cralawThe decision of the RTC, Olivia claims, intelligently conforms to these

criteria. The RTC, being clothed with discretionary functions, applied its finding of
psychological incapacity based on existing jurisprudence and the law itself which gave
lower court magistrates enough latitude to define what constitutes psychological
incapacity. On the contrary, she further claims, the OSG relied on generalities without
being specific on why it is opposed to the dissolution of a marriage that actually exists
only in name.chanroblesvirtua|awlibary

The RTC decision nullified OLIVIA DURAN TAVACO marriage with respondent
ORLANDO OLIVER ANDRES on the ground of psychological incapacity.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. We

AFFIRM the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62443.
Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

MARIANO C. DEL CASTILLO ROBERTO A. ABAD

Associate Justice Associate Justice
 JOSE PORTUGAL PEREZ
Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.

ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairpersons Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of
the opinion of the Courts Division.

REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice