G.R. No. 258095 – LEILANI LIM GO, PETITIONER, VS. HENDRICK N. GO AND REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENTS

LAZARO-JAVIER, J.

Rule Synopsis

The concept of psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code pertains to the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses arising from their respective personality structures. Other than expert opinion, ordinary pieces of evidence may be considered. Specifically, clear, persistent, and chronic acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities that result in a state of mutual incompatibility and antagonism, which undermines the family.

Facts

In August 1999, Leilani and Hendrick Go were married. They had two children.

In July 2011, Leilani filed a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage with Hendrick based on Art. 36 of the Family Code. She alleged the following:

They decided to get married when Leilani got pregnant with their first child. However, Hendrick was hesitant and even suggested that they consider an abortion. He also expressed doubt as to the child’s paternity.
After marriage, they lived with Hendrick’s parents which Leilani found to be difficult.
In 2000, Leilani had suspicions that Hendrick was cheating with his ex-girlfriend.
Leilani also complained about Hendrick’s inability to provide financially for the family.
Leilani also complained of Hendrick’s character traits such as: he always ignored her; he was nonchalant towards her ordeal including when she had a miscarriage of their third child; he was disinterested in physical intimacy; he made her feel unloved by not making efforts to celebrate special occasions; they constantly argued and quarreled; he refused to undergo marriage counseling.

They later completely separated. The separation appeared beneficial as they became amiable with each other. They also co-parented their children, over which they shared joint custody.

The following testified on behalf of Leilani:

Jennel See, Leilani’s close friend and their schoolmate since grade school, among others, described Leilani essentially as a people-pleaser, and easily got disappointed when things did not go her way. She also described Hendrick as lacking affecting towards Leilani and extremely dependent on his parents for support and decision-making.
Clinical Psychologist Nedy Tayag did a psychological evaluation of the couple based on interviews with Leilani and Jennel. She testified that Leilani was suffering from Passive Aggressive Personality Disorder with features of Narcissistic Personality Disorder while Hendrick was suffering from Avoidant Personality Disorder with features of Antisocial Personality Disorder.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted Leilani’s petition, which the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed. The CA also denied Leilani’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Hence, the instant appeal to the Supreme Court.

Issues

Should the marriage between Leilani and Hendrick be set aside for being a nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code?

Ruling and Discussion

Yes. The marriage between Leilani and Hendrick should be set aside for being a nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code.

In the landmark case of Tan-Andal v. Andal (2021 [G.R. No. 196359]), psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code was reconceptualized as the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between the spouses arising from their respective personality structures. Such mutual incompatibility and antagonism (1) show the lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with the spouses’ essential marital obligations, and (2) undermine the unity and harmony within the family which may be traced from the spouses’ psychic or personality structures that clash with one another.

Other than expert opinion, other forms of evidence are now looked into, which include ordinary pieces of evidence, specifically clear, persistent, and chronic acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities that result in a state of mutual incompatibility and antagonism, which undermines the family.

Meanwhile, such acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities include the “failure of the spouse/s to perform his, her, or their marital duties and obligations that is demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.” It captures such facts as (i) forms of addiction demonstrative of such insensitivity or inability, (ii) abandonment by one spouse of the other, or (iii) instances of mutual actual loss of trust, love, and respect for each other.

Notwithstanding, Tan-Andal retained the following characteristics as a requirement for psychological incapacity: (i) gravity; (ii) juridical antecedence; and (iii) incurability. Each of these elements must be proven clearly and convincingly.

Here, the Court finds the existence and gravity of the mutual incompatibility and antagonism between spouses Leilani and Hendrick.

The acts, behavior, conduct, events, reputation, character, or circumstances of dysfunctionalities revolve around conflicting personality structures between spouses. The marital relationship of Leilani and Hendrick has been wracked by mutual incompatibility and antagonism as shown by the fact that they remain separated, are better off as parents to their children when apart, and that, despite the contrary evidence offered by Hendrick, he did not seek to reconcile and live together again with Leilani.

Both causative and symptomatic of their mutual incompatibility and antagonism are Leilani’s problems with Hendrick’s relations, particularly his parents, lack of or unsatisfactory sexual relations, associability or refusal to speak or communicate, and physical separation. But the true deep reason for their lack of ability to be together is their incompatible personality structures.

The characteristics of psychological incapacity are also present in this case. (i) based on Leilani’s evidence, ironically corroborated by Hendrick and his father, their mutual incompatibility and antagonism is grave; (ii) their mutual incompatibility and antagonism are incurable. The Clinical Psychologist’s opinion gave substantial probability to this conclusion. The spouses’ behavior confirmed this opinion, and (iii) Leilani’s and Hendrick’s mutual incompatibility and antagonism are pre-marital (juridical antecedence). This mutual incompatibility and antagonism must have been present though latent before they were married. It blew openly and out of proportion when they began to live together. It disappeared when they started living apart.

dispositive

Petition granted. The marriage of Hendrick and Leilani Go is declared void ab initio. Decision and Resolution of the CA reversed.