Memorandum on Psychological Incapacity Final Copy

Memorandum on Psychological Incapacity By: Sheryll Ann Y.Rin Submitted to: Atty. Ramon Leano

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR The

Public

Prosecutor

unto

the

Honorable

Court

most

respectfully avers:

STATEMENT OF THE CASE On

September

16,2005,

petitioner

Michelle

Tan-Rosario

(Michelle) and respondent Simon John Rosario (Simon) contracted marriage

at

Cabugao,

Ilocos

Sur.

The

marital

union

did

not

produce any child. On December 15, 2006, a year after their marriage,John left for Canada

to work. Since then, he never

went back home. Michelle now comes to court to pray for the declaration of nullity

of

her

marriage

to

Simon

John

on

the

ground

of

psychological incapacity.

ISSUE Whether constitutes

or

not

psychological

abandonment incapacity

by to

be

and a

of

itself

ground

for

declaration of nullity of a marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code.

THE LAW ARTICLE 36 Psychological incapacity, to be a ground for the nullity of marriage

under

Article

361

of

the

Family

Code,

refers

to

a

serious psychological illness affecting a party even before the celebration of marriage. JURISPRUDENCE

In Santos vs. Court of Appeals2, the Supreme Court held that

psychological

incapacity

must

be

characterized

by

(a)

gravity, (b)juridical antecedence and (c) incurability.

1

Article 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration. 2 310.Phil.21(1995)

In Republic vs. Molina3, the Supreme Court further set forth

guidelines

in

the

interpretation

and

application

of

Article 36 of the Family Code, thus: 1. The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity.xxxx 2. The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be: (a) medically and clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (e)clearly explained in the decision 3. The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration of the marriage.” 4. Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. 5. Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage 6. The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Article 68 to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. 7. Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling, should be given great respect by our courts. 8. The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state.

ARGUMENTS THE TOTALITY OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED DOES NOT WARRANT DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE OF MICHELLE AND SIMON JOHN

THE

ABANDONMENT BY AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY TO BE A GROUND FOR DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE UNDER ARTICLE 36 OF THE FAMILY CODE

DISCUSSION ON THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED

The Supreme Court clarified in Antonio vs. Reyes4 that the Molina Guidelines is not set in stone and that Article 36 is to be applied in a case to case basis. Furthermore in Ngo Te vs. Yu-Te5, expert testimony is not always required but certainly helps prove allegations since Psychological Incapacity is a mental process. Nevertheless, there is still a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder6. In this case, the psychological incapacity report is insufficient to establish Simon’s psychological incapacity. In this case, Michele sought to establish that Simon was not able to fulfill the marital obligations of marriage on the ground 3 4 5 6

of

his

abandonment

of

the

335 Phil.664 (1997) G.R.No. 155800, 10 March, 2000. G.R.No. 161793, February 2009. Bier vs Bier, G.R.No. 173294, February 27, 2008.

conjugal

home,

ceasing

to

provide

spousal

support

and

failing

to

communicate

with

his

wife. (TSN, December 15, 2010). No other witness who had seen and observed his demeanor before their marriage and during their year together were presented. Michelle relied heavily on the findings

of

the

psychologist

who

made

up

the

following

evaluation regarding Simon’s make-up: 1.

When

Michelle

and

Simon

were

married,

they

developed Partner Relational Problem. 2.

During their marriage, Simon demonstrated in his

attitude and behavior his psychological incapacity to fulfill essential marital obligations 2.1

He was self-centered, selfish, insensitive, when he

left Michelle alone in the conjugal home.

The report

Psychologist was

Michelle.

based

Hence,

was

only the

not

on

able

the

Court

to

interview

interview

should

not

she

give

Simon.

conducted weight

to

The on her

assessment regarding the behavior of Simon. The

report

failed

to

show

the

root

cause

of

Simons’s

psychological incapacity as it failed to demonstrate that there was a ”natal or supervening disabling factor” or an “adverse integral

element

in

Simon’s

character,

that

effectively

incapacitated her from accepting, and thereby complying with, the

essential

marital

obligations7,and

that

his

psychological

incapacity was already existing before their marriage. ON ABANDONMENT The

intendment

of

application

of

Article

personality

disorders

the 36

law to

clearly

has the

been most

to

confine

serious

demonstrative

of

the

cases the

of

utter

insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.8 The petition must fail. Mere difficulty or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or “ill will” on the part of the spouse which is the abandonment of the husband of his wife 7 8

Ferraris vs Ferraris,G.R.No.162368, July 17, 2006. Ting vs Velez-Ting, G.R.No.166562, March 31, 2009.

in

this

case

is

different

from

“incapacity”

rooted

in

some

debilitating psychological illness. An unsatisfactory marriage,is not a null and void marriage.9 At best, the circumstances relied upon by the petitioner

are

grounds

the

for

declaration

legal of

separation

nullity

of

and

marriage

not under

a

ground

Article

for 36

of

the

Family Code. Under Article 55 of the Family Code, “Abandonment of petitioner by respondent without justifiable cause for more than one year is a ground for legal separation.”

PRAYER WHEREFORE,considering does

not

constitute

that

abandonment

psychological

by

and

incapacity,

of the

itself Public

Prosecutor prays that the petition be ordered DENIED and the marriage

of

Michelle

Tan-Rosario

and

Simon

declared valid and existing.

9

Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco, G.R.No. 158896, October 27, 2004.

John

Rosario

be