Amy Perez-Ferraris v. Brix FerrarisGR 162368 July 17, 2006

495 SCRA 396Denial of SC of the Petition of Declaration of Nullity of Marriage

Amy Perez-Ferraris v. Brix FerrarisFacts:• Ma. Armida Perez, aka Amy Perez, married Brix Ferraris in 1995. Two

years later, on May 17, 1997, they had a son.

• However, their union was very short. Brix left her and her 10-month

old son. Amy begged him to stay, but he still left.

• Trying to make things right out of that sudden change in her life, she

went to fortune tellers, attended various spiritual seminars and tried

many other religions. She talked to her in-laws, she tried to talk to

Brix’ and her friends, but it seemed that everything is not favorable to

her.

• She contended that she tried everything to save her marriage with

Brix until she gave up in 2000. She filed a petition for declaration of

nullity of marriage at the Pasig Trial Court citing the husband’s

psychological incapacity. She argued that her husband Brix would

always leave the house when they quarreled. He had violent

tendencies during epileptic attacks. He preferred to spend time with

his band mates and he also slept with other women. He abandoned

her and their son and did not give financial support.

• Amy presented to the court her witness: Dr Natividad Dayan, PhD.• Dr Natividad “Natty” Dayan is a

clinical and forensic psychologist. • She said Brix has “mixed

personality disorder” called “schizoid”.

• The RCT of Pasig City rendered a decision denying the petition for

declaration of nullity of Amy’s marriage with Brix. The CA also denied

the appeal on the case. Amy Perez-Ferraris, as the petitioner herein,

brought the case to the Supreme Court

Issues:• Issue #1 – Whether the leaving from the house when the husband and

wife quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks,

spending more time with band mates, sleeping with other women and

abandonment are demonstrations of psychological incapacity.

• Issue #2 – Whether Dr Natividad Dayan’s statement is necessary for

the declaration of nullity of marriage.

Ruling of the Supreme Court:No.• The Supreme Court denied the petition of Amy Perez-Ferraris.• The SC said that psychological incapacity, to be ground for the nullity

of marriage under the Article 36 of the Family Code of the Philippines, refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage.• It must be so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness

of the essential obligations of a matrimonial bond as stated in Article 68-71 in the New Civil Code.• The SC ruled that the husband’s mixed personality disorder is a MERE

refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

• The SC cited in Hernandez v CA, 320 SCRA 76 (1999), that habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity.

.

• The Constitution recognizes the sanctity of marriage and the unity of the family. It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable” and protects it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.

• Yes• The court acknowledges that it heavily relies on psychological experts

for its understanding of the human personality.• However, in the case at bar, the statement of Dr Natty Dayan, did not

give enough proof to favor Amy Perez. Based on the statements of Dr Natty Dayan, the court was convinced that the “mixed personality disorder” of Brix is not rooted on psychological incapacity as defined by law, but a mere refusal to perform the marital obligations, also prescribed by law.

Citations of Similar Cases:Book sources:• Luicita Estrella Hernandez v. Court of Appeals and Mario C. Hernandez, G.R. No. 162368, 320 Scra 76 (December 8, 1999)• Juanita Carating-Sianyngco v. Manuel Siayngco, G.R. No. 158896, 441 Scra 422 (October 27, 2004)

Electronic Sources:• Leouel Santos v. Court of Appeals and Julia Rosario Bedia-Santos

Arellano Law Foundation (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/jan1995/gr_112019_1995.html)• Republic v. Court of Appeals and Molina

Arellano Law Foundation (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1997/feb1997/gr_108763_1997.html)• Brenda B. Marcos v. Wilson G. Marcos

Supreme Court decisions online (http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/oct2000/136490.htm)• Republic v. Quintero-Humano

Supreme Court decisions online (http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2004/may2004/gr_149498_2004.html)Photos/Comics used in slides:www.google.com.ph