Carating-Siayngco vs Siayngco -GRP 2

Carating-Siayngco vs. Siayngco Facts: Petitioner Juanita Carating-Siayngco and respondent respondent Manuel were married at civil rites on 27 June 1973 and beore t!e Cat!olic C!urc! on 11 "ugust 1973# "ter discovering t!at t!ey could not !ave a c!ild o t!eir own$ t!e couple decided to adopt a baby boy in 1977$ w!o t!ey named Jeremy# "ter twenty-our %2&' years o married lie toget!er$ respondent Manuel (led or t!e declaration o its nullity on t!e ground o psyc!ological incapacity o petitioner  Juanita# )e alleged t!at all t!roug!out t!eir marriage$ !is wie e*!ibited an over domineering and sel(s! attitude towards !im w!ic! was e*acerbated by !er e*tremely volatile and bellicose nature+ t!at s!e incessantly complained about almost everyt!ing and anyone connected wit! !im )e stated t!at !er psyc!ological incapacity arose beore marriage$ !er resentment and vindictiveness$ lac, o love and appreciation rom !er own parents since c!ild!ood and t!at suc! incapacity is permanent and incurable+ and t!at !e endured and suered t!roug! !is turbulent and loveless marriage to !er or twentytwo %22' years# .n !er "nswer$ petitioner Juanita alleged t!at respondent respondent Manuel is still living wit! !er at t!eir con/ugal !ome in Malolos$ 0ulacan+ t!at !e invented malicious stories against !er so t!at !e could be ree to marry !is paramour and t!at it was respondent Manuel w!o was remiss in !is marital and amily obligation# espondent Manuel t!en denied t!at !e was a womanier or t!at !e !ad a mistress# # 4"568." "C." stated t!at Manuel Siayngco and Juanita Carating-Siayngco contributed to t!e marital collapse# 8!ere is a partner relational problem w!ic! aected t!eir capacity to sustain t!e marital bond wit! love$ support and understanding#

Issue:  :!et!er or not t!e parties are psyc!ologically incapacitated to perorm t!e essential marital obligations toward eac! ot!er$ warranting t!e dissolution o t!eir marriage# Ruling: o# .n t!e case at bar$ respondent Manuel ailed to prove t!at !is wie;s lac, o respect or !im$ !er /ealousies and obsession wit! cleanliness$ !er outbursts and !er controlling nature %especially wit! respect to !is salary'$ and !er inability to endear !ersel to !is parents are grave psyc!ological maladies t!at paralye !er rom complying wit! t!e essential obligations o marriage# eit!er is t!ere any s!owing t!at t!ese ciently proven by e*perts and %d'

clearly e*plained in t!e trial court;s decision# Suc! illness must be grave enoug! to bring about t!e disability o t!e party to assume t!e essential obligations o marriage# 8!us$ ?mild c!aracterological peculiarities$ peculiarities$ mood c!anges$ occasional emotional outbursts@ cannot be accepted as root causes# 8!e illness must be s!own as downrig!t incapacity or inability$ not a reusal$ neglect or di>culty$ muc! less ill will#