By Atty. Rolex T. Suplico
I have been asked by OFWs for legal advice for their marriages under severe strain. I think that the case of Benjamin G. Ting vs. Carmen M. Velez-Ting (G. R. No. 166562, Mar. 31, 2009) will give everyone important insights.
Ben and Carmen met and fell in love while studying medicine. They married in 1975. Ben became a doctor, and worked in a hospital, owned by Carmen’s family, where she was the treasurer. In 1993, after 18 years of marriage and 6 children, Carmen filed a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of her marriage, based on Art. 36 of the Family Code. She alleged that Ben’s psychological incapacity consisted of alcoholism, violent nature, gambling and his failure and refusal to give regular financial support to his family. In his answer, Ben denied being psychologically incapacitated and denied Carmen’s allegations.
Carmen presented, among others, Dr. Purita, a psychiatrist, whose evaluation of Ben, “instead of the usual interview, x x x, was limited to the transcript of stenographic notes taken during (his) deposition because (he) had already gone to work x x x in a hospital in South Africa.” Dr. Purita concluded that Ben’s “compulsive drinking, compulsive gambling and physical abuse x x x are clear indications that (he) suffered from a personality disorder.”
On the other hand, Ben presented Dr. Renato, a psychiatrist as his expert witness. He “evaluated (Ben’s) psychological behavior based on the transcript of stenographic notes, as well as the psychiatric evaluation report prepared by Dr. A. J. L. Pentz, a psychiatrist from the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and his interview with (Ben’s) brothers.“ He “observed that there is nothing wrong with (Ben’s) personality, considering the latter’s good relationship with his fellow doctors and his good track record x x x.”
In 1998, the lower court rendered a decision declaring the marriage null and void. It gave credence to Dr. Purita’s findings. However, on appeal to the Court of Appeals, the lower court’s decision was reversed. But the CA reconsidered its decision and granted Carmen’s motion for reconsideration. Ben filed his motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. He filed with the Supreme Court this petition for review on certiorari.
The Court’s Third Division, in a decision written by Justice Nachura, granted Ben’s petition. It said that “we find the totality of evidence adduced by respondent (Carmen) insufficient to prove that petitioner (Ben) is psychologically unfit to discharge the duties expected of him as a husband, and more particularly, that he suffered from such psychological incapacity as of the date of the marriage eighteen (18) years ago. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s and appellate court’s rulings declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent null and void ab initio.”
The Court explained that:
“The evaluation of the two psychiatrists should have been the decisive evidence in determining whether to declare the marriage between the parties null and void. Sadly, however, we are not convinced that the opinions provided by these experts strengthened respondent’s allegation of psychological incapacity. The two experts provided diametrically contradicting psychological evaluations: (Dr. Purita) testified that petitioner’s behavior is a positive indication of a personality disorder, while (Dr. Renato) maintained that there is nothing wrong with petitioner’s personality. Moreover, there appears to be greater weight in (Dr. Renato’s) opinion because, aside from analyzing the transcript of (Ben’s) deposition similar to what (Dr. Purita), (Dr. Renato) also took into consideration the psychological evaluation report furnished by another psychiatrist in South Africa who personally examined (Ben), as well as his (Dr. Renato’s) personal interview with (Ben’s) brothers. Logically, therefore, the balance tilts in favor of (Dr. Renato’s) findings.”
In closing, the Court stated that:
“Lest it be misunderstood, we are not condoning petitioner’s drinking and gambling problems, or his violent outbursts against his wife. There is no valid excuse to justify such behavior. Petitioner must remember that he owes love, respect, and fidelity to his spouse as much as the latter owes the same to him. Unfortunately, this court finds respondent’s testimony, as well as the totality of the evidence presented by respondent, to be too inadequate to declare him psychologically unfit pursuant to Article 36. It should be remembered that the presumption is always in favor of the validity of marriage. Semper praesumitur pro matrimonio. In this case, the presumption has not been amply rebutted and must, perforce, prevail.”
Dear reader, I have reproduced here Art. 36 of Executive Order No. 209 dated July 6, 1987, as amended by E. O. 227, otherwise known as the Family Code of the Philippines: “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.”
