G.R. No. 185286 August 18, 2010 MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner, CAMACHO-REYES, Petitioner, vs. RAMON REYES, Respondent. REYES, Respondent.
Facts: Petitioner Maria Socorro Camacho-Reyes and Ramon Reyes got married on December 5, 1976 when the petitioner was was already five months pregnant. The newlyweds lived with Ramon’s family and all their living expenses were shouldered by Ramon’s parents. Salary of the spouses was spent solely for the personal expenses of each. Initially, Ramon gave Socorro a monthly allowance of P1,500 from his salary. When their first child was was born on March March 22, 1977, financial difficulties started. A year into their marriage, the monthly allowance allowance stopped. Ramon resigned from his job in their family business and decided to venture in different businesses, which took him away from his family. Ramon however did not exert any effort to communicate with his family, even after Socorro gave birth to their third child. As with Ramon’s Ramon ’s business ventures, all did not succeed and added to the trail of debt. Not surprisingly, the relationship of the parties deteriorated. In 1996, Socorro confirmed that Ramon was having an extra marital affair, and soon realized that Ramon was not only unable to provide financially for their family, but he was, more importantly, remiss in his obligation to remain faithful faithful to her and their family. One last episode that sealed the fate of the parties’ marriage was a surgical operation on Socorro for the r emoval r emoval of a cyst. Although his wife wife was about to be operated on, Ramon remained unconcerned and unattentive. In an attempt to salvage what was left in their marriage, Socorro approach Ramon’s siblings, who in turn invited the parties to counseling sessions which still did not improve the relationship. Adolfo, Ramon’s sibling, also brought Ramon to Dr. Natividad A. Dayan for a psychological assessment to "determine benchmarks of current psychological functioning." Ramon resisted and did not continue with the clinical psychologist’s psychologist’s recommendation to undergo psychotherapy. Socorro then told Ramon to move out of their house. The separation did not improve the relationship of the parties and between Ramon and the children, thus the petition for declaration of nullity of her marriage was file before the RTC alleging the latter’s psychological incapacity to fulfill the essen tial marital obligations under Article 36 of of the Family Code. Code. This petition was granted by the RTC. RTC. A motion for reconsideration was filed by Ramon before before the RTC but denied the same. Ramon then appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on its decision on May 23, 2007, stated that the decision of RTC was reversed and set aside despite the testimony of experts regarding Ramon’s condition . Socorro then appealed to the Supreme Court by reason that the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that both parties are psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of the marriage and that the psychological incapacity was established in court by a preponderance of evidence.
Issue: Whether or not the marriage between the parties is void ab initio on the ground of both parties’ psychological incapacity, as provided in Article 36 of the Family Code.
Held: The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
The world's largest digital library
Try Scribd FREE for 30 days to access over 125 million titles without ads or interruptions! Start Free Trial Cancel Anytime.
between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is REINSTATED. The appellate court is mistaken in declaring that the psychological incapacity of Ramon is not incurable. A recommendation of therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general, recommendations for therapy are given by clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage behavior. In Kaplan and Saddock’s textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry, treatment, ranging from psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended. In short, Dr. Dayan’s recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy does not necessarily negate the finding that respondent’s psychological incapacity is incurable. Moreover, Dr. Dayan, during her testimony, categorically declared that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform the essential marital obligations. As aptly stated by Justice Romero Romero in her separate opinion in the ubiquitously cited case of Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina: The professional opinion of a psychological expert became increasingly important in such cases. Data about the person’s entire life, both before and after the ceremony, were presented to these experts and they were asked to give professional professional opinions about a party’s mental capacity at the time of the wedding . wedding .
