Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. CABANTUG-BAGUIORepublic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURTManilaSECOND DIVISIONG.R. No. 171042 June 30, 2008REPUBLIC O T!E P!ILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.L"NNETTE C#B#NTUG$B#GUIO, respondent.D E C I S I O NC#RPIO MOR#LES, J.%From the Decision of the Court of Appeals which affirmed that of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, ranch !" nullif#ing the marriage of respondent, $#nnette Cabantug%aguio &$#nnette', to Martini Dico aguio &Martini', the Republic through the (ffice of the )olicitor *eneral filed the present petition for review.$#nnette and Martini contracted marriage on August +!, +,,-. $ess than three #ears later or on (ctober +!, !..., $#nnette filed before the Regional Trial Court &RTC' of Cebu Cit# a complaint+ for declaration of nullit# of marriage, doc/eted as Civil Case 0o. C1 !2-.., on the ground of Martini3s ps#chological incapacit# to compl# with the essential marital duties and obligations under Articles 45%-.! of the Famil# Code.Despite service of summons upon Martini, he never filed an# responsive pleading to the complaint.6 0o collusion was established between the parties." 7pon the authorit# of the )olicitor *eneral, the provincial prosecutor of Cebu Cit# appeared in the case under the former3s supervision and control.2From the deposition of $#nnette ta/en before ranch Cler/ of Court Att#. Monalila ). Tecson on 8anuar# +., !..+,4 the following are gathered9$#nnette and Martini, a seaman wor/ing overseas, became pen pals in +,,2.:n +,,4, the two met in person during Martini3s vacation after the e;piration of his contract on board an ocean%going vessel.(n August +!, +,,-, Martini, then 6!, and $#nnette, then 6", contracted marriage,- following which the# moved to the house of $#nnette3s parents at 66% $a *uardia 1;tension, $ahug, Cebu Cit#. Martini, however, sta#ed there onl# on wee/ends, and during wee/da#s he sta#ed with his parents in$ooc, $apu%lapu Cit#. mama3s bo#.> And she noticed too that when she would call up Martini at his parent3s house and his mother was the one who answered the call, she would den# that he was around.:n +,,5, after Martini again returned following an almost +.%month contract overseas,5 he sta#ed with $#nnette. at the time the couple e;changed their marriage vows.>The )olicitor *eneral, via appeal,!+ challenged before the Court of Appeals the trial court3s decision. . . D1C$AR:0* TA1 PART:1)3 MARR:A*1 07$$ A0D H(:D, D1F10DA0T) MART:0: D:C( A*7:(3) P)ECA($(*:CA$ :0CAPAC:TE 0(T AAH:0* 110 PR(H10 T( 1I:)T.!!# Decision!6 of 8anuar# +6, !..2, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court3s decision. Addressing the )olicitor *eneral3s argument that Dr. *erong3s testimon# failed to establish the causeof Martini3s ps#chological incapacit# and to show that it e;isted at the inception of the marriage,!" the Court of Appeals held9; ; ; B:Cn contradiction of the Republic3s contention and its supporting above%cited doctrine, this Court cites the more recent @urisprudence laid down in the case of Marcos v. Marcos,!2 inwhich the Aigh Tribunal has foregone with the re?uirement that the defendant should be e;amined b# a ph#sician or ps#chologist as aconditio sine qua non for declaration of nullit# of marriage. :t held thus9>The x x x guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated x x x [w]hat is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the partys psychological condition [f]or indeed if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination for the person concerned need not be resorted to.!!4Therefore , &'e o()* +e,o-.&.on /o0 L1ne&&e2 )n+ &'e P-13'o*o4.3)* E5)*u)&.on Re,o(&b# Dr. Andres ). *erong, Ph.D. as Clinical Ps#chologist declaring the defendant ps#chologicall#incapacitated to compl# with the essential obligations in marriage and famil# life was sufficient for 7) to believe thatun+en.)6*1 &'e +e0en+)n& -u00e(- ,-13'o*o4.3)* .n3),)3.&1.!- &:talics in the originalD emphasis and underscoring supplied'(n the )olicitor *eneral3s contention that Martini3s abandonment of $#nnette is a ground for legal separation and not for declaration of nullit# of marriage,!5 and that Martini3s alleged personalit# traits are not of the nature contemplated b# Article 64 of the Famil# Code,!, the Court of Appeals declared9LEANGIE MORA 4Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. CABANTUG-BAGUIO; ; ; BaC marriage contracted b# an# part# who, at the time of the celebration, was ps#chologicall# incapacitated to compl# with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall li/ewise be void even if such incapacit# becomes manifest onl# after its solemni=ation.>Article 64 must be read in con@unction with the other articles in the Famil# Code, specificall# Articles 62, 6-, 65, and "+ which provide different grounds to render a marriage void ab initio, as well as Article "2 which dwell on voidable marriages, and Article 22 on legal separation.6, Care must be observed so that these various circumstances are not to be applied indiscriminatel# as if the law were indifferent on the matter.".And Article 64 should not be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves, nor with legal separation in which the grounds need not be rooted in ps#chological incapacit# but on ph#sical violence, moral pressure, moral corruption, civil interdiction, drug addiction, habitual alcoholism, se;ual infidelit#, abandonment, and the li/e."+>+sychological incapacity> has been elucidated on as follows9LEANGIE MORA 6Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. CABANTUG-BAGUIOThe term >psychological incapacity> to be a ground for the nullit# of marriage under Article 64of the Famil# Code, refers to a serious ps#chological illness afflicting a part# even before the celebration of the marriage. :t is a malad# so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.As all people ma# have certain ?uir/s and idios#ncrasies, or isolated characteristics associated with certain personalit# disorders, there is hardl# a doubt that the intendment of the law has been to confine the meaning of > psychological incapacity > to the most serious cases of personalit# disorders clearl# demonstrative of anu&&e( .n-en-.&.5.&1 o( .n)6.*.&1 &o 4.5e 8e)n.n4 )n+ -.4n.0.3)n3e &o &'e 8)((.)4e. ; ; ; BTChe root cause must be identified as a ps#chological illness, and its incapacitating nature must be full# e;plained ; ; ;."! &1mphasis and underscoring supplied'The mere showing of >irreconcilable differences> and >conflicting personalities> does not constitute ps#chological incapacit#."6 0or does failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons.:t is essential that the parties to a marriage must be shown to be insensitive to or incapable of meeting their duties and responsibilities due to some ps#chological &not ph#sical' illness,"" which insensitivit# or incapacit# should have been e;isting at the time of the celebration of the marriageeven if it becomes manifest onl# after its solemni=ation."2:n fine, for ps#chological incapacit# to render a marriage void ab initio, it must be characteri=ed b#&a' *ravit# J :t must be grave and serious such that the part# would be incapable of carr#ing out the ordinar# duties re?uired in a marriageD&b' 8uridical Antecedence J :t must be rooted in the histor# of the part# antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations ma# emerge onl# after the marriageD and&c' :ncurabilit# J :t must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be be#ond the means of the part# involved. "4Dr. *erong found that Martini3s >personalit# disorders> including his being a >mama3s bo#> are >serious, grave, e;isting alread# during the adolescent period and incurable> and concluded that Martini >appeared> to be dependent upon his famil# and unable >to establish a domicile for his famil# and to support his famil#.>The doctor3s findings and conclusion were derived from his interview of $#nnette and her sister and $#nnette3s deposition. From $#nnette3s deposition, however, it is gathered that Martini3s failure to establish a common life with her stems from his refusal, not incapacit#, to do so. :t is downright incapacit#, not refusal or neglect or difficult#, much less ill will,"- which renders a marriage void on theground of ps#chological incapacit#. :n another vein, how the doctor arrived at the conclusion, after interviewing $#nnette and considering her deposition, that an# such personalit# disorders of Martini have been e;isting since Martini3s adolescent #ears has not been e;plained. :t bears recalling that Martini and $#nnette became pen pals in +,,2 and contracted marriage in +,,- when Martini was alread# 6! #ears old, far removed from adolescent #ears.LEANGIE MORA 7Legal ResearchPEOPLE VS. CABANTUG-BAGUIODr. *erong3s citing of Martini3s appointment of his mother as a beneficiar# and his representing himself as single in his )eafarer :nformation )heet, without more, as indications of Martini3s dependence on his famil# amounting to his incapacit# to fulfill his duties as a married man does not logicall# follow, especiall# given that the )eafarer3s :nformation )heet is not even dated"5 and, therefore, there is no certaint# that it was prepared after Martini contracted marriage.medicall# or clinicall# identified.> Theremust thus be evidence to ade?uatel# establish the same. There is none such in the case at bar, however.The Constitution sets out a polic# of protecting and strengthening the famil# as the basic social institution and marriage as the foundation of the famil#.", Marriage, an inviolable institution protected b# the )tate,2. cannot be dissolved at the whim of the parties.2+ :n petitions for the declaration of nullit# of marriage, the burden of proof to show the nullit# of marriage lies on the plaintiff.2! An# doubtshould be resolved in favor of the e;istence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullit#.26As reflected above, $#nnette failed to discharge the onus probandi.