MALLILIN v. JAMESOLAMIN G.R. No. 192718 Facts:
Robert Robert Malilin Malilin and Luz Jameso Jamesolam lamin in were were marri married ed on Septem September ber 6, 1972 1972 and begot begot three three children !he petitioner "iled a complaint "or nullit# o" marriage on the grounds that the respondent allegedl# su""ered "rom ps#chological and mental incapacit# at the time o" the marriage celebration, unprep unprepare aredne dness ss to enter enter into into such such marita maritall li"e, li"e, and to compl# compl# with with its essent essential ial obliga obligatio tions ns and responsibilities Such incapacit# became e$en more apparent during their marriage when Luz e%hibited clear mani"est mani"estation ation o" immaturi immaturit# t#,, irresponsi irresponsibili bilit# t#,, de"icienc# de"icienc# o" independen independentt rational rational &udgment, &udgment, and inabilit# to cope with the hea$# and o"tentimes demanding obligation o" a parent 'e testi"ied that Luz was alread# li$ing in (ali"ornia, )S*, and married an *merican +hile the# were still together though, Robert disclosed that respondent did not per"orm responsibilities o" being a housewi"e lie eeping the house in order, preparing meals, washing clothes and taing care o" the children 'e also stated that she dated se$eral men and contracted loans without his nowledge -n turn Luz "iled her answer with a counterclaim, a$erring that it was Robert who mani"ested ps#chological incapacit# incapacit# .n September 2/, 2//2, the Regional !rial !rial (ourt had rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and $oid on the ground o" ps#chological incapacit# on the part o" Luz as she "ailed to compl# with the essential marital obligations but the (ourt o" *ppeals, in its 0o$ember 2/, 2//9 ecision, re$ersed the R!( decision Issue:
+hether +hether or not the totali totalit# t# o" the e$iden e$idence ce adduce adduced d pro$es pro$es that that Luz was ps#cho ps#cholog logica icall# ll# incapacitated to compl# with the essential obligations o" marriage warranting the annulment o" their marriage under *rticle *rticle 6 o" the 3amil# (ode Held:
!he petition is 40-4 !he Supreme (ourt stated that Robert5s e$idence "ailed to establish the ps#chological incapacit# o" Luz .ther than his sel"ser$ing testimon#, no other witness corroborated his allegations on her beha$ior *s the (ourt (ourt has repeatedl# repeatedl# stressed, stressed, ps#chologi ps#chological cal incapacit incapacit# # contempla contemplates tes downrigh downrightt incapacit incapacit# # or inabilit# to tae cognizance o" and to assume the basic marital obligations, not merel# the re"usal, neglect or di""icult#, di""icult#, much less ill will, on the part o" the errant spouse !here was also nothing in the records that would indicate that Luz had either been inter$iewed or was sub&ected to a ps#chological e%amination .n interpretations gi$en b# the 0*M! o" the (atholic (hurch in the 8hilippines, #es, the# are gi$en great respect b# our courts, but the# are neither controlling nor decisi$e Lastl#, Lastl#, on petitions "or declaration o" nullit# o" marriage, the burden o" proo" to show the nullit# o" marriage lies with the plainti"" )nless the e$idence presented clearl# re$eals a situation where the parties, or one o" them, could not ha$e $alidl# entered into a marriage b# reason o" a gra$e and serious ps#chological illness e%isting at the time it was celebrated, the (ourt is compelled to uphold the indissolubilit# o" the marital tie
