FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. 201988, October 11, 2017
MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO LONTOC-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NILO SANTOS CRUZ, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
DEL CASTILLO, J.:
The most challenging part of being in a difficult marriage is to thrive in one. In the case of petitioner Maria Victoria Socorro Lontoc-Cruz (Marivi) and respondent Nilo Santos Cruz (Nilo), their marriage withered as this was beset with problems such as the lack of quality time, recriminations, disillusionment, loss of passion, and infidelity. The estranged spouses considered their union as non-functional, attributing the failure of their marriage to their respective personality disorders that repelled each other.
This Petition for Review on Certiorari1 challenges the November 22, 2011 Decision2 and May 29, 2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 93736 that affirmed the Decision4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 207, Muntinlupa City in Civil Case No. 05-095 which refused to declare the marriage void ab initio under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Factual Antecedents
Twenty-two-year-old Marivi met 28-year old Nilo sometime in March 1986. They became steady in August of the same year. Nilo, whose job was then in Hong Kong, prodded Marivi to marry him so she could join him there soonest. Marivi agreed. The couple married in a civil ceremony5 on October 21, 1986 followed by a church wedding6 on February 8, 1987. The marriage produced two sons: Antonio Manuel, born on April 25, 1988, and Jose Nilo, born on September 9, 1992.
On July 7, 2005, Marivi filed with the RTC of Muntinlupa City a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage7 based on psychological incapacity. She averred that it had been medically ascertained that Nilo was suffering from "inadequate personality disorder related to masculine strivings associated with unresolved oedipal complex,"8 while she herself was found to be suffering from a "personality disorder of the mixed type, [h]istrionic, [n]arcissistic with immaturity x x x."9
To show that Nilo failed to provide her with the necessary emotional, psychological, and physical support, Marivi cited the following:
The root cause of the above clinical conditions on the part of Marivi Cruz, were the overindulgence and over attention of her parents, in a prolonged manner, carried over to adult adjustments. On the part of Nilo Cruz, his negative identification and resentments towards his father and close attachments to his mother, continued by his long-time maid, to the point of an oedipal situation led to his inadequacy, along masculine strivings, with difficult assertions of his authority and power.According to Dr. Villegas, both parties could not tolerate each others' weaknesses and that the incapacities of the parties are grave because they preferred to satisfy their own needs rather than to give in to the other's needs.41
The above clinical conditions existed prior [to] marriage but became manifest only after the celebration due to marital stresses and demands. Both are considered as permanent in nature, because they started early in their developmental stage, and therefore became so deeply engrained into their personality structures. Both are considered grave in degree, because they hampered, interfered and disrupted their normal functioning related to heterosexual adjustments.40
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court in CV No. 05-095 denying the petition tor declaration of nullity of marriage between appellant Maria Victoria Socorro Lontoc-Cruz and appellee Nilo Santos Cruz for insufficiency of evidence is hereby AFFIRMED. No costs.Marivi moved for a reconsideration but it was denied in the CA's May 29, 2012 Resolution.54
SO ORDERED.53
Art. 36. A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.We have laid down guidelines in interpreting and applying this provision. In Republic v. De Gracia,55 we reiterated the doctrine in Santos v. Court of Appeals,56 "that psychological incapacity must be characterized by: (a) gravity (i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage); (b) juridical antecedence (i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage); and (c) incurability (i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved)." Also, in Republic v. Court of Appeals,57 we reiterated the well-settled guidelines in resolving petitions for declaration of nullity of marriage, as embodied in Republic v. Court of Appeals,58viz.:
(1) The burden of proof to show the nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. x x x.Notably, "mere showing of 'irreconcilable differences' and 'conflicting personalities' [as in the present case,] in no wise constitutes psychological incapacity."59 "Nor does failure of the parties to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons" amount to psychological incapacity.60 We further elucidated in Yambao v. Republic61 that the psychological condition should render the subject totally unaware or incognitive of the basic marital obligations:
x x x x
(2) The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be (a) medically or clinically identified, (b) alleged in the complaint, (c) sufficiently proven by experts and (d) clearly explained in the decision. Article 36 of the Family Code requires that the incapacity must be psychological - not physical, although its manifestations and/or symptoms may be physical. x x x.
x x x x
(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at 'the time of the celebration' of the marriage. x x x.
x x x x
(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. x x x.
x x x x
(5) Such illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage. Thus, 'mild characteriological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts' cannot be accepted as root causes. x x x.
x x x x
(6) The essential marital obligations must be those embraced by Articles 68 up to 71 of the Family Code as regards the husband and wife as well as Articles 220, 221 and 225 of the same Code in regard to parents and their children. Such non-complied marital obligation(s) must also be stated in the petition, proven by evidence and included in the text of the decision.
(7) Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines, while not controlling or decisive, should be given great respect by our courts. x x x.
x x x x
(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. x x x.
Article 36 contemplates incapacity or inability to take cognizance of and to assume basic marital obligations and not merely difficulty, refusal, or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will. This incapacity consists of the following: (a) a true inability to commit oneself to the essentials of marriage; (b) this inability to commit oneself must refer to the essential obligations of marriage: the conjugal act, the community of life and love, the rendering of mutual help, the procreation and education of offspring; and (c) the inability must be tantamount to a psychological abnormality. It is not enough to prove that a spouse failed to meet his responsibility and duty as a married person; it is essential that he must be shown to be incapable of doing so due to some psychological illness.62In Marcos v. Marcos,63 the actual medical examination of the one claimed to have psychological incapacity is not a condition sine qua non, for what matters is the totality of evidence to sustain a finding of such psychological incapacity. While it behooves this Court to weigh the clinical findings of psychology experts as part of the evidence, the court's hands are nonetheless free to make its own independent factual findings. "It bears repeating that the trial courts, as in all the other cases they try, must always base their judgments not solely on the expert opinions presented by the parties but on the totality of evidence adduced in the course of the proceedings."64
Nor can it be said that Nilo's failure to provide quality time for the family was caused by his "inadequate personality disorder" or "unresolved oedipal complex." Nilo explained that he has a taxing and demanding job, and that unfortunately, with his working hours eating up his home life, while he was able to provide his family with an adequate standard of living, the lack of quality time for his wife became attenuated and resulted in severing his bond with Marivi, who failed to understand the nature of his job. They were a happy couple during the period of courtship, and even during the early years of their marriage. Nilo testified:
THE COURT: The Court has just some questions with regard to the main issue. During your direct testimony; Mr. Witness, you mentioned some of your faults which [may be] the reason why the instant case was filed. x x x one of those faults is no sex. When did that happen? x x x A. If I recall it right, Your Honor; I [had] some challenge[s] immediately after the first birth of my eldest son which I x x x shared with the psychologist or psychiatrist who [had] examined me. THE COURT: But when you got married with your wife that was not a problem until the birth of your last son? A. Yes, your Honor. ATTY. STA MARIA, JR.: Q. So it is attributable to the petitioner though you claim that it is your fault, is that correct? A. Because, your Honor, that kind of situation, I always get blamed, so for the purpose of settling all these questions, when you make that mistake, you'll always be the one to be blamed although as per the psychologist and the psychiatrist, there's also a reason why I am not able to perform sex to my wife because in those ten (10) years that we were together, after the first one, [didn't] have any other affairs but I kept being blamed that I [had] just because I [was] not able to perform sex to her. The whole family, her family knows that in that premise because I got, one time, in one of our quarrels x x x told me, "maybe you're not making love with my daughter because you are having an affair with another woman." So, I know I made a mistake in the past but if I'm x x x kept [being] reminded of it, it's a punishment, your Honor. x x x x Q. What you initially said was your fault was...as you're now talking before this Honorable Court, is really the fault of the petitioner; is that what you are saying? A. There [were] times, your Honor, I would say it was my fault. There [were] times it was caused by her faults as well. It's not one plus one it was hers and one plus one it was mine, it depends on the situation. We've been dealing with cases before so not all the time it's the fault of Mrs. Cruz. And not all the time it's the fault of Mr. Cruz. It's a relationship, there are times it's hers, there are times, it's mine but we're able to fix it until this annulment situation came. x x x x67
Interestingly, when asked if there was no more functional marital life between him and Marivi, Nilo candidly highlighted his different perception from his estranged wife:
ATTY. REVILLA: Q. x x x What was the reason why you had to stay up late? A. Ma'am, I'm...in those I.T. companies that I worked for whether manager or managing director, my companies are...the companies are involved in sales and marketing and support so it entails entertainment of clients, entertainment of principals coming from headquarters and entertainment of customers with my staff and other company. Q. When you say I.T., what does it stand for? A. Information Technology. Q. You also referred to a headquarters. What do you mean by headquarters? A. Headquarters, if you work in a multinational company like companies I worked for, they have headquarters in Hong Kong, they have headquarters in Singapore, they have headquarters in the U.S. Q. So you had to entertain principals corning from [these] headquarters? A. As a part of the job as required by the principals who [visit] us. Q. How often were you required to stay out late because of your job? A. Ma'am, it is unpredictable. Sometimes, we were required to stay for dinner and entertainment thereafter. Sometimes, we can go home early also. Q. Could you not refuse the invitations of going out and just go home and spend time with your family? A. Sometimes I can refuse, sometimes I cannot. Because it becomes a condition of sale of the clients x x x. x x x x Q. So x x x what's the latest time of the night that you usually come home? A. My objective as a husband and as a father is to really come as early as I can which I have explained on and on, your Honor. But to meet my million dollar targets of the country, I have to do things beyond 5 o'clock. In several occasions when I tried to go home early, to my disappointment, my kids are not at home because they were borrowed by my in-laws to have merienda. That's why I complained to my wife that time that "please tell me if they are going with my in-laws because I don't want to deprive them also of the few times I'm able to go home early." Q. So, you are saying that you only have few times of coming home early? A. Well, yes, but not very few. Q. Okay. Have you tried to make an effort to remedy the situation? A. Well, if I have my way to be able to direct my appointments in the South, my meetings in Amkor Anam, Mamplasan, in Sta. Rosa then that will allow me to be home at least 5-6 o'clock. But most of my meetings in Makati, Quezon City, Manila especially with government clients [do] allow me to go home early, your Honor. x x x x68 THE COURT: What about another fault you mentioned which is staying late, when did this thing happen? A. When I came back from my assignment in Hong Kong in 1988 when I was given a new job in sales and marketing. x x x x THE COURT: So before the birth of your children, that is after your marriage with the petitioner, this was not a problem? A. Because, your Honor, I was assigned in Hong Kong and I was only twelve (12) minutes [away] by [foot] to our office x x x. x x x x And I was not in [sales] and marketing, I was the Administrative Assistant of the President of IBM in Southeast Asia so it's the...purely management administrative work as an administrative assistant so there's [not] much of entertaining done in Hong Kong. THE COURT: Okay, so in other words, at that time, that was not a problem. It was only a problem when you were appointed to your position in... A. IBM. THE COURT: That was so many years after you got married with your wife? A. We got married, your Honor, in 1987 then we went back to the Philippines in July 1988 [when] I was given a new marketing and [sales] role as a manager of general marketing which is...which encompasses all industries aside [from] the government. THE COURT: So you mean to say that this problem of staying late only happened lately? x x x x A. The definition, your Honor, of my family...late is when you don't make it at 7:00 o'clock or...[with] the family at 7:00 o'clock in the evening. So if I don't make it at seven, I considered myself late. THE COURT: What is the reason why you have been late? A. Your Honor, my job is not a 9 to 5 job because we...we call on customers, we entertain customers, partners, principals, we also have fellowship with our teams. So, we either have dinner or we have happy hours. We also see friends after. So but, physically I cannot do that everyday, your Honor, because I also wake up automatically at 6:00 everyday whether I have a drink, or have dinner, or I worked out in the evening or play[ed] basketball during that time, I always wake up at six. So if I stayed up late like previously...like 2, 3, it's gonna be a burden for me physically and [I would be] unable to perform my job well. So, like I mentioned earlier in a hearing, your Honor, many times I tried to be home by 10 to be able to watch. Before 10 to be able to watch the 10:00 o'clock news and be able to enjoy my ice cream while watching it. THE COURT: Well, one of those faults you mentioned is also working hard, why did you say that it is your fault? A. In our industry, your Honor, when you work out, you will definitely end up late several couple of times, but not all the time. x x x x Your Honor, sometimes, I get all these complaints. But when they saw my picture in the newspaper or in the TV having success stories and contract signing, they are proud of me. THE COURT: When you say "so proud of me," to whom are you referring x x x? A. My family. They call me, they congratulate me, we have dinners together to celebrate but to get to that, is the working hard and staying away from the family. x x x x THE COURT: How long did you court your wife? A. Six (6) months, your Honor. x x x x69 THE COURT: Could you say that you were a perfect couple at that time? A. When we were starting, your Honor, we [were] happy, and during the time that we were in Hong Kong. But when we went back to Manila, there are times (the witness is in tears)...adjusting to work and family that is why it affected my relationship to her family and combination of mistakes happened which I admitted. THE COURT: How would you describe your wife during your first years of marriage? A. [She was] a very good wife. THE COURT: Did she perform her duties as a wife and as a mother? A. Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: And was she that independent from her parents or she was too dependent [on] her parents? A. On her performing her duties, with the...as a wife and as a friend, she's independent. When it comes to our problems, she would consult her family. THE COURT: So only those times when you have a problem. Like what problems, Mr. Witness? A. Our relationship, your Honor. THE COURT: But most of the time, you were able to patch up your problems? A. Yes, your Honor. x x x x70
Even the psychiatrist Dr. Villegas pinpointed the differences of the estranged couple which led to squabbles -
ATTY. STA. MARIA, JR.: Q. So, Mr. Witness, well in reality today, Mr. Witness, even the petitioner believes that there is no more functional marital life in this relationship, would you agree with that? A. If that's the way she thinks, I...I will have my own way of looking at things because... x x x x Q. Even...as I was saying since she was asking for nullity and you were asking for nullity, it's a fact of life as of today, as you speak today that there is no more functional marital life between the two (2) of you? A. You see, your Honor, that's why we're different. Her style is conclude and conclude. I have a different style because of my background. I will only stop till death. I cannot share her legal counsel's statement with my own thinking, your Honor. x x x x71
It is significant to note that Marivi failed to substantiate Nilo's penchant for womanizing as a manifestation of his psychological incapacity. Aside from her bare allegations, which were chiefly based on what other people told her, she never presented irrefutable proof to corroborate her claims of his sexual proclivities, i.e., that these proclivities were already existing before the marriage and during the first years of their marriage. Nilo, on the other hand, categorically admitted to having extramarital affairs in 1992, 2002, and 2006, the period when the marriage was already on the rocks. Neither is there evidence of Nilo's alleged oedipal complex, the manifestations of which were not cited by the experts, that caused the couple to fall out of love.
ATTY. STA. MARIA, JR.: Q. Doctor, from your examination of both respondent and petitioner the obligation of trust and respect for each other, how did it not manifest in this relationship? A. The respondent [sees] the petitioner as one who's very negativistic on him or who's very demanding and who is also trying to put him down because according to him, the petitioner would always see his weak points rather than his strong points. Q. Are you saying that this developed a non-trust just between them? A. None trust. They do not trust each other anymore. On the part of the petitioner, because of his womanizing activities and on the part of the respondent, that the petitioner is always looking at his weak points rather than his strong points. x x x x72
Upon the view we take of this case, thus, this Court believes that the protagonists in this case are in reality simply unwilling to work out a solution for each other's personality differences, and have thus become overwhelmed by feelings of disappointment or disillusionment toward one another. Sadly, a marriage, even if unsatisfactory, is not a null and void marriage.75
ATTY. REVILLA: Q. So even without the respondent, Nilo Cruz, petitioner would still be psychologically incapacitated? A. I beg to [differ] from that because the needs were not fulfilled in this particular marriage, it's like a tendency to have cancer, but if you take care of yourself with the right environment, you will not catch cancer. Those were previous positions, that's why I called them Histrionic Personality Traits Behaviors and Features not a full blown Histrionic Personality Disorder, the needs were badly unfulfilled in this marriage because she married a man who did not know the language of feeling of showing some attention towards his spouse, meaning, if she is put in a relationship with a man who is able to address these needs, she would be better, she would be better in a marriage. Q. So this psychological incapacity of the petitioner is only dormant at the time that she was not yet married? A. Well, it's grave... Q. Was it grave already at the time... A. Yes, it is, it's grave but... Q. Even before the marriage? A. ...but not incurable, that is the only adjective, grave, pre-existing... Q. Pre-existing? Grave and pre-existing, yes, incurable, no, in the sense that if she married properly if her needs were addressed, it would not appear in that marriage. Q. But because of her marriage to the respondent, are you saying now that her psychological incapacity now... A. Became an incapacity, yes. Q. ...became incurable? A. No. x x x x Q. Okay. I am quite curious about the curability of the personality disorder of the petitioner. Now, if her needs are satisfied with...in case, assuming the petitioner enters into another relationship and her needs are satisfied then her incapacity is cured, is that what you're saying? A. In effect, yes, in effect, yes. Q. Would you say, what are these needs of the petitioner that [you're]...not satisfied of the respondent? A. Need to be paid attention to, need to be valued, need to have an effect on someone, it is a universal need. She was made to feel that she did not have any effect on him and so are the children, x x x well, the father made the children feel that they, wife and two sons did not have any effect on him, ma'am. x x x73 Q. One last question. The needs of the petitioner, like you say, do you think she was able to convey, clearly convey her needs to the respondent, properly convey? A. Very clearly, yes, and then when they were still not being heard, well, iyon na nga eh, yung hostility niya and resentment would get the better of her as a ano...so it would become dysfunctional reaction upon reaction. That's a good question.74
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 44-133.
2 CA rollo, pp. 166-190; penned by Associate Justice Socorro B. Inting and concurred in by Associate Justices Fernanda Lampas Peralta and Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo.
3 Id. at 272-273.
4 Records, pp. 425-442; penned by Presiding Judge Philip A. Aguinaldo.
5 Id. at 206.
6 Id. at 207.
7 Id. at 1-9.
8 Id. at 7.
9 Id.
10 Id. at 4-5.
11 Id. at 60-69.
12 Id. at 62-63.
13 See CA rollo, p. 173.
14 Records, pp. 125-128.
15 Id. at 211-212.
16 Id. at 212.
17 Id. at 214.
18 Id.
19 Id. at 215.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id. at 217.
23 Id.
24 Id. at 215-216.
25 Id. at 216.
26 Id. at 218.
27 Id. at 216-219, 220.
28 Id. at 216.
29 Id. at 216 and 219.
30 Id. at 247-251.
31 Id. at 252-253.
32 TSN-Nilo Cruz, August 14, 2007, pp. 39-41.
33 TSN-Nilo Cruz, September 13, 2007, pp. 48-49.
34 Records, pp. 310-311.
35 Records, pp. 311-312; TSN- Nilo Cruz, August 28, 2007, pp. 41-47.
36 TSN-Nilo Cruz, September 13, 2007, p. 79.
37 Records, p. 7.
38 Id.
39 Id. at 236-246.
40 Id. at 246.
41 TSN-Dr. Cecilia Villegas, February 6, 2007, p. 60.
42 Records, pp. 245-246; TSN-Dr. Cecilia Villegas, February 6, 2007, pp. 19-20.
43 TSN-Dr. Cecilia Villegas, February 6, 2007, pp. 14, 16-18.
44 Id. at 23-24.
45 Records, pp. 244-245; TSN-Dr. Cecilia Villegas, February 6, 2007, pp. 28-30.
46 Records, pp. 259-261; TSN-Dr. Ruben Encarnacion, June 5, 2007, pp. 24, 26-28, 34-35, 61-63.
47 Records, pp. 259-261; TSN-Dr. Ruben Encarnacion, June 5, 2007, pp. 22-24, 44, 51-52.
48 TSN-Dr. Ruben Encarnacion, June 5, 2007, pp. 55-56.
49 Records, pp. 259-260; TSN-Dr. Ruben Encarnacion, June 5, 2007, p. 59.
50 Records, pp. 443-460.
51 CA rollo, pp. 166-190.
52 Id. at 182-183.
53 Id. at 189.
54 Id. at 272-273.
55 726 Phil. 502, 510 (2014).
56 310 Phil. 21, 39 (1995).
57 698 Phil. 257, 266-267 (2012).
58 335 Phil. 664, 676-679 (1997).
59 Id. at 674.
60Republic v. Cabantug-Baguio, 579 Phil. 187, 199 (2008).
61 655 Phil. 346 (2011).
62 Id. at 358-359.
63 397 Phil. 840, 842 (2000).
64Mendoza v. Republic, 698 Phil. 241, 254 (2012).
65Republic v. De Gracia, supra note 55 at 513.
66 TSN-Nilo Cruz, September 13, 2007, pp. 35-36.
67 Id. at 62-63.
68 TSN-Nilo Cruz, August 28, 2007, pp. 42-43, 46-47.
69 TSN-Nilo Cruz, September 13, 2007, pp. 36-40.
70 Id. at 41-42.
71 Id. at 80-81.
72 TSN-Dr. Cecilia Villegas, February 6, 2007, pp. 25-26.
73 TSN-Dr. Ruben Encarnacion, June 5, 2007, pp. 41-43, 45.
74 Id. at 46.
75Navales v. Navales, 578 Phil. 826, 846 (2008).