[G.R. No. 124099.  October 30, 1997]

MANUEL G. REYES, MILA G. REYES, DANILO G. REYES, LYN AGAPE, MARITES AGAPE, ESTABANA GALOLO, and CELSA AGAPE, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND JULIO VIVARES, respondents.

D E C I S I O N

TORRES, JR., J.:

Unless legally flawed, a testator’s intention in his last will and testament is its “life and soul” which deserves reverential observance.

The controversy before us deals with such a case.

Petitioners Manuel G. Reyes, Mila G. Reyes, Danilo G. Reyes, Lyn Agape, Marites Agape, Estebana Galolo and Celsa Agape, the oppositors in Special Proceedings No. 112 for the probate of the will of Torcuato J. Reyes, assail in this petition for review the decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29, 1995, the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the judgment appealed from allowing or admitting the will of Torcuato J. Reyes to probate and directing the issuance of Letter Testamentary in favor of petitioner Julio A. Vivares as executor without bond is AFFIRMED but modified in that the declaration that paragraph II of the Torcuato Reyes' last will and testament, including subparagraphs (a) and (b) are null and void for being contrary to law is hereby SET ASIDE, said paragraphs (a) and (b) are declared VALID.  Except as above modified, the judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

The antecedent facts:

On January 3, 1992, Torcuato J. Reyes executed his last will and testament declaring therein in part, to wit:

“xxx

II. I give and bequeath to my wife Asuncion “Oning” R. Reyes the following properties to wit:

a. All my shares of our personal properties consisting among others of jewelries, coins, antiques, statues, tablewares, furnitures, fixtures and the building;

b. All my shares consisting of one half (1/2) or 50% of all the real estates I own in common with my brother Jose, situated in Municipalities of Mambajao, Mahinog, Guinsiliban, Sagay

all in Camiguin; real estates in Lunao, Ginoong, Caamulan, Sugbongcogon, Boloc-Boloc, Kinoguinatan, Balingoan, Sta. Ines, Caesta, Talisayan, all in the province of Misamis Oriental.”

The will consisted of two pages and was signed by Torcuato Reyes in the presence of three witnesses: Antonio Veloso, Gloria Borromeo, and Soledad Gaputan.  Private respondent Julio A. Vivares was designated the executor and in his default or incapacity, his son Roch Alan S. Vivares.

Reyes died on May 12, 1992 and on May 21, 1992, private respondent filed a petition for probate of the will before the Regional Trial Court of Mambajao, Camiguin.  The petitioner was set for hearing and the order was published in the Mindanao Daily Post, a newspaper of general circulation, once a week for three consecutive weeks.  Notices were likewise sent to all the persons named in the petition.

On July 21, 1992, the recognized natural children of Torcuato Reyes with Estebana Galolo, namely Manuel, Mila, and Danilo all surnamed Reyes, and the deceased’s natural children with Celsa Agape, namely Lyn and Marites Agape, filed an opposition with the following allegations: a) that the last will and testament of Reyes was not executed and attested in accordance with the formalities of law; and b) that Asuncion Reyes Ebarle exerted undue and improper influence upon the testator at the time of the execution of the will.  The opposition further averred that Reyes was never married to and could never marry Asuncion Reyes, the woman he claimed to be his wife in the will, because the latter was already married to Lupo Ebarle who was still then alive and their marriage was never annulled.  Thus Asuncion can not be a compulsory heir for her open cohabitation with Reyes was violative of public morals.

On July 22, 1992, the trial court issued an ordering declaring that it had acquired jurisdiction over the petition and, therefore, allowed the presentation of evidence.  After the presentation of evidence and submission of the respective memoranda, the trial court issued its decision on April 23, 1993.

The trial court declared that the will was executed in accordance with the formalities prescribed by law.  It, however, ruled that Asuncion Reyes, based on the testimonies of the witnesses, was never married to the deceased Reyes, and, therefore, their relationship was an adulterous one.  Thus:

“The admission in the will by the testator to the illicit relationship between him and ASUNCION REYES EBARLE who is somebody else’s, wife, is further bolstered, strengthened, and confirmed by the direct testimonies of the petitioner himself and his two “attesting” witnesses during the trial.

In both cases, the common denominator is the immoral meretrecious, adulterous and adulterous and illicit relationship existing between the testator and the devisee prior to the death of the testator, which constituted the sole and primary consideration for the devise or legacy, thus making the will intrinsically invalid.”

The will of Reyes was admitted to probate except for paragraph II (a) and (b) of the will which was declared null and void for being contrary to law and morals.  Hence, Julio Vivares filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals with the allegation that the oppositors failed to present any competent evidence that Asuncion Reyes was legally married to another person during the period of her cohabitation with Torcuato Reyes.

On November 29, 1995, the Court of Appeals promulgated the assailed decision which affirmed the trial court’s decision admitting the will for probate but the modification that paragraph II including subparagraphs (a) and (b) were declared valid.  The appellee court stated:

“Considering that the oppositors never showed any competent, documentary or otherwise during the trial to show that Asuncion “Oning” Reyes’ marriage to the testator was inexistent or void, either because of a pre-existing marriage or adulterous relationship, the trial court gravely erred in striking down paragraph II (a) and (b) of the subject Last Will and Testament, as void for being contrary to law and morals.  Said declarations are not sufficient to destroy the presumption of marriage.  Nor is it enough to overcome the very declaration of the testator that Asuncion Reyes is his wife.”

Dissatisfied with the decision of the Court of Appeals, the oppositors filed this petition for review.

Petitioners contend that the findings and conclusion of the Court of Appeals was contrary to law, public policy and evidence on record.  Torcuato Reyes and Asuncion “Oning” Reyes were collateral relatives up to the fourth civil degree.  Witness Gloria Borromeo testified that Oning Reyes was her cousin as her mother and the latter’s father were sister and brother.  They were also nieces of the late Torcuato Reyes.  Thus, the purported marriage of the deceased Reyes and Oning Reyes was void ab initio as it was against public policy pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Family Code.  Petitioners further alleged that Oning Reyes was already married to Lupo Ebarle at the time she was cohabiting with the testator hence, she could never contact any valid marriage with the latter.  Petitioners argued that the testimonies of the witnesses as well as the personal declaration of the testator, himself, were sufficient to destroy the presumption of marriage.  To further support their contention, petitioners attached a copy of the marriage certificate of Asuncion Reyes and Lupo Ebarle.

The petition is devoid of merit.

As a general rule, courts in probate proceedings are limited to pass only upon the extrinsic validity of the will sought to be probated. Thus, the court merely inquires on its due execution, whether or not it complies with the formalities prescribed by law, and the testamentary capacity of the testator.  It does not determine nor even by implication prejudge the validity or efficacy of the will’s provisions. The intrinsic validity is not considered since the consideration thereof usually comes only after the will has been proved and allowed.  There are, however, notable circumstances wherein the intrinsic validity was first determined as when the defect of the will is apparent on its face and the probate of the will may become a useless ceremony if it is intrinsically invalid. The intrinsic validity of a will may be passed upon because “practical considerations” demanded it as when there is preterition of heirs or the testamentary provisions are doubtful legality. Where the parties

agree that the intrinsic validity be first determined, the probate court may also do so. Parenthetically, the rule on probate is not inflexible and absolute.  Under exceptional circumstances, the probate court is not powerless to do what the situation constrains it to do and pass upon certain provisions of the will.

The case at bar arose from the institution of the petition for the probate of the will of the late Torcuato Reyes.  Perforce, the only issues to be settled in the said proceeding were: (1) whether or not the testator had animus testandi; (2) whether or not vices of consent attended the execution of the will; and (3) whether or not the formalities of the will had been complied with.  Thus, the lower court was not asked to rule upon the intrinsic validity or efficacy of the provisions of the will.  As a result, the declaration of the testator that Asuncion “Oning” Reyes was his wife did not have to be scrutinized during the probate proceedings.  The propriety of the institution of Oning Reyes as one of the devisees/legatees already involved inquiry on the will’s intrinsic validity and which need not be inquired upon by the probate court.

The lower court erroneously invoked the ruling in Nepomuceno vs. Court of Appeals (139 SCRA 206) in the instant case.  In the case aforesaid, the testator himself, acknowledged his illicit relationship with the devisee, to wit:

“Art. IV.  That since 1952, I have been living, as man and wife, with one Sofia J. Nepomuceno, whom I declare and avow to be entitled to my love an [sic] affection, for all the things which she has done for me, now and in the past; that while Sofia J. Nepomuceno has with my full knowledge and consent, did comfort and represent myself as her own husband, in truth and in fact, as well as in the eyes of the law, I could not bind her to me in the holy bonds of matrimony because of my aforementioned previous marriage.”

Thus, the very tenor of the will invalidates the legacy because the testator admitted he was disposing of the properties to a person with whom he had been living in concubinage. To remand the case would only be a waste of time and money since the illegality or defect was already patent.  This case is different from the Nepomuceno case.  Testator Torcuato Reyes merely stated in his will that he was bequeathing some of his personal and real properties to his wife, Asuncion “Oning” Reyes.  There was never an open admission of any illicit relationship.  In the case of Nepomuceno, the testator admitted that he was already previously married and that he had an adulterous relationship with the devisee.

We agree with the Court of Appeals that the trial court relied on uncorroborated testimonial evidence that Asuncion Reyes was still married to another during the time she cohabited with the testator.  The testimonies of the witnesses were merely hearsay and even uncertain as to the whereabouts or existence of Lupo Ebarle, the supposed husband of Asuncion.  Thus:

“The foregoing testimony cannot go against the declaration of the testator that Asuncion “Oning” Reyes is his wife.  In Alvarado v. City Government of Tacloban (supra) the Supreme Court stated that the declaration of the husband is competent evidence to show the fact of marriage.

Considering that the oppositors never showed any competent evidence, documentary or otherwise during the trial to show that Asuncion “Oning” Reyes’ marriage to the testator was inexistent or void, either because of a pre-existing marriage or adulterous relationship, the trial court gravely erred in striking down paragraph II (a) and (b) of the subject Last Will and Testament, as void for being contrary to law and morals.  Said declarations are not sufficient to destroy the presumption of marriage.  Nor is it enough to overcome the very declaration of the testator that Asuncion Reyes is his wife.”

In the elegant language of Justice Moreland written decades ago, he said-

“A will is the testator speaking after death.  Its provisions have substantially the same force and effect in the probate court as if the testator stood before the court in full life making the declarations by word of mouth as they appear in the will.  That was the special purpose of the law in the creation of the instrument known as the last will and testament.  Men wished to speak after they were dead and the law, by the creation of that instrument, permitted them to do so.  xxx All doubts must be resolved in favor of the testator’s having meant just what he said.”  (Santos vs. Manarang, 27 Phil. 209).

Petitioners tried to refute this conclusion of the Court of Appeals by presenting belatedly a copy of the marriage certificate of Asuncion Reyes and Lupo Ebarle.  Their failure to present the said certificate before the probate court to support their position that Asuncion Reyes had an existing marriage with Ebarle constituted a waiver and the same evidence can no longer be entertained on appeal, much less in this petition for review.  This Court would no try the case a new or settle factual issues since its jurisdiction is confined to resolving questions of law which have been passed upon by the lower courts.  The settled rule is that the factual findings of the appellate court will not be disturbed unless shown to be contrary to the evidence on the record, which petitioners have not shown in this case.

Considering the foregoing premises, we sustain the findings of the appellate court it appearing that it did not commit a reversible error in issuing the challenged decision.

ACCORDINGLY, decision appealed from dated November 29, 1995, is hereby AFFIRMED and the instant petition for review is DENIED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Regalado, (Chairman), Romero, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

Suazo vs. Suazo; March 10, 2010

Case Doctrine: As the CA did, we find Jocelyn’s evidence insufficient to establish Angelito’s psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations. We so conclude based on our own examination of the evidence on record, which we were compelled to undertake because of the differences in the trial court and the appellate courts appreciation and evaluation of Jocelyn’s presented evidence.

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 164493 : March 10, 2010

JOCELYN M. SUAZO, Petitioner, vs. ANGELITO SUAZO and REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondents.

D E C I S I O N

BRION, J.:

We resolve the appeal filed by petitioner Jocelyn Suazo (Jocelyn) from the July 14, 2004 Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 62443, which reversed the January 29, 1999 judgment of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 119, Pasay City in Civil Case No. 97-1282. The reversed RTC decision nullified Jocelyn’s marriage with respondent Angelito Suazo (Angelito) on the ground of psychological incapacity.

THE FACTS

Jocelyn and Angelito were 16 years old when they first met in June 1985; they were residents of Laguna at that time. After months of courtship, Jocelyn went to Manila with

Angelito and some friends. Having been gone for three days, their parents sought Jocelyn and Angelito and after finding them, brought them back to Biñan, Laguna. Soon thereafter, Jocelyn and Angelitos marriage was arranged and they were married on March 3, 1986 in a ceremony officiated by the Mayor of Biñan.

Without any means to support themselves, Jocelyn and Angelito lived with Angelito’s parents after their marriage. They had by this time stopped schooling. Jocelyn took odd jobs and worked for Angelito’s relatives as household help. Angelito, on the other hand, refused to work and was most of the time drunk. Jocelyn urged Angelito to find work and violent quarrels often resulted because of Jocelyn’s efforts.

Jocelyn left Angelito sometime in July 1987. Angelito thereafter found another woman with whom he has since lived. They now have children.

Ten years after their separation, or on October 8, 1997, Jocelyn filed with the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code, as amended. She claimed that Angelito was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage. In addition to the above historical narrative of their relationship, she alleged in her complaint:

x x x x

8. That from the time of their marriage up to their separation in July 1987, their relationship had been marred with bitter quarrels which caused unbearable physical and emotional pains on the part of the plaintiff because defendant inflicted physical injuries upon her every time they had a troublesome encounter;

9. That the main reason for their quarrel was always the refusal of the defendant to work or his indolence and his excessive drinking which makes him psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations making life unbearably bitter and intolerable to the plaintiff causing their separation in fact in July 1987;

10. That such psychological incapacity of the defendant started from the time of their marriage and became very apparent as time went and proves to be continuous, permanent and incurable;

x x x x

Angelito did not answer the petition/complaint. Neither did he submit himself to a psychological examination with psychologist Nedy Tayag (who was presumably hired by Jocelyn).

The case proceeded to trial on the merits after the trial court found that no collusion existed between the parties. Jocelyn, her aunt Maryjane Serrano, and the psychologist testified at the trial.

In her testimony, Jocelyn essentially repeated the allegations in her petition, including the alleged incidents of physical beating she received from Angelito. On cross-examination, she remained firm on these declarations but significantly declared that Angelito had not treated her violently before they were married.

Asst. Sol. Gen. Kim Briguera:

Q. Can you describe your relationship with the respondent before you got married?

A. He always go (sic) to our house to court me.

Q. Since you cited violence, after celebration of marriage, will you describe his behavioural (sic) pattern before you got married?

A. He show (sic) kindness, he always come (sic) to the house.

Q. So you cannot say his behavioral pattern composing of violent nature before you got married (sic), is there any signs (sic) of violence?

A. None maam (sic), because we were not sweethearts.

Q. Even to other people?

A. He also quarrel (sic).

Maryjane Serrano corroborated parts of Jocelyns testimony.

When the psychologist took the witness stand, she declared:

Q. What about the respondent, did you also make clinical interpretation of his behavior?

A. Apparently, the behavior and actuation of the respondent during the time of the marriage the respondent is suffering from anti-social personality Disorder this is a serious and severe apparently incurable (sic). This disorder is chronic and long-standing before the marriage.

Q. And you based your interpretation on the report given by the petitioner?

A. Based on the psychological examination wherein there is no pattern of lying when I examined her, the petitioner was found to be very responsive, coherent, relevant to marital relationship with respondent.

Q. And the last page of Exhibit “E” which is your report there is a statement rather on the last page, last paragraph which state: It is the clinical opinion of the undersigned that marriage between the two, had already hit bottom rock (sic) even before the actual celebration of marriage. Respondent(s) immature, irresponsible and callous emotionality

practically harbors (sic) the possibility of having blissful relationship. His general behavior fulfill(s) the diagnostic criteria for a person suffering from Anti Social Personality Disorder. Such disorder is serious and severe and it interferred (sic) in his capacity to provide love, caring, concern and responsibility to his family. The disorder is chronic and long-standing in proportion and appear(s) incurable. The disorder was present at the time of the wedding and became manifest thereafter due to stresses and pressure of married life. He apparently grew up in a dysfunctional family. Could you explain what does chronic mean?

A. Chronic is a clinical language which means incurable it has been there long before he entered marriage apparently, it came during early developmental (sic) Basic trust was not develop (sic).

Q. And this long standing proportion (sic).

A. That no amount of psychological behavioral help to cure such because psychological disorder are not detrimental to men but to others particularly and this (sic) because the person who have this kind of disorder do not know that they have this kind of disorder.

Q. So in other words, permanent?

A. Permanent and incurable.

Q. You also said that this psychological disorder is present during the wedding or at the time of the wedding or became manifest thereafter?

A. Yes, maam.

x x x x

Court:

Q. Is there a clinical findings (sic)?

A. That is the clinical findings. Personality Disorder labeled on Anti-Social Personality Disorder (sic).

Q. How was shown during the marriage (sic)?

A. The physical abuses on the petitioner also correlated without any employment exploitative and silent (sic) on the part of the respondent is clearly Anti-Social Disorder.

Q. Do the respondent know that he has that kind of psychological disorder (sic)?

A. Usually a person suffering that psychological disorder will not admit that they are suffering that kind of disorder (sic).

Court:

Q. So because of this Anti-Social Disorder the petitioner suffers a lot (sic)?

A. Yes, because the petitioner is a victim of hardships of marital relation to the respondent (sic).

Court:

Q. Was the Anti-Social Personality Disorder also shown to the parents (sic)?

A. Yes, according to the petitioner, respondent never give due respect more often than not he even shouted at them for no apparent reason (sic).

Court:

Q. Did you say Anti-Social Disorder incurable (sic)?

A. Yes, sir.

Court:

Q. Is there a physical violence (sic)?

A. Actually, I could see the petitioner is tortured mentally of the respondent (sic).

Court:

Q. How was the petitioner tortured?

A. She was able to counter-act by the time she was separated by the respondent (sic).

Court:

Q. Do you mean to tell us that Anti-Social disorder is incurable?

A. Yes, sir.

Court:

Q. Why did you know?

A. Anti-Social disorder is incurable again because the person itself, the respondent is not aware that this kind of personality affect the other party (sic).

Court:

Q. This Anti-Social behavior is naturally affected the petitioner (sic)?

A. They do not have children because more often than not the respondent is under the influence of alcohol, they do not have peaceful harmonious relationship during the less than one year and one thing what is significant, respondent allowed wife to work as housemaid instead of he who should provide and the petitioner never receive and enjoy her earning for the five months that she work and it is also the petitioner who took sustainance of the vices. (sic)

Q. And because of that Anti-Social disorder he had not shown love to the petitioner?

A. From the very start the respondent has no emotion to sustain the marital relationship but what he need is to sustain his vices thru the petitioner (sic).

Court:

Q. What are the vices?

A. Alcohol and gambling.

Court:

Q. And this affected psychological incapacity to perform marital obligation?

A. Not only that up to this time from my clinical analysis of Anti-Social Personality Disorder, he is good for nothing person.

The psychologist also identified the Psychological Report she prepared. The Report pertinently states:

Report on the psychological condition of JOCELYN M. SUAZO, a petitioner for “Nullity of Marriage” versus ANGELITO D. SUAZO

GENERAL DATA

This pertains to Jocelyns]

BRIEF MARITAL HISTORY

x x x x

Husband is Angelito D. Suazo, 28 years old reached 3rd year high school, a part time tricycle driver, eldest among 4 siblings. Father is a machine operator, described to be an alcoholic, womanizer and a heavy gambler. While mother is a sales agent. It was a common knowledge within their vicinity that she was also involved in an illicit relationship. Familial relationship was described to be stormy, chaotic whose bickering and squabbles were part and parcel of their day to day living.

TEST RESULTS AND EVALUATION

Projective data reveal an introvert person whose impulse life is adequately suppressed so much so that it does not create inner tension and anxiety. She is fully equipped in terms of drives and motivation particularly in uplifting not, only her socio-emotional image but was as her morale. She may be sensitive yet capable of containing the effect of such sensitiveness; in order to remain in goodstead (sic) with her immediate environment.

She is pictured as a hard-working man (sic) who looks forward for a better future in spite of difficulties she had gone through in the past. She is fully aware of external realities of life that she set simple life goals which is (sic) commensurate with her capabilities and limitations. However, she needs to prioritize her interest in order to direct her energy toward specific goals. Her tolerance for frustration appears to be at par with her coping mechanism that she is able to discharge negative trends appropriately.

REMARKS :

Already cited in full in the psychologists testimony quoted above

The Office of the Solicitor General representing the Republic of the Philippines strongly opposed the petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage. Through a Certification filed with the RTC, it argued that the psychologist failed to examine and test Angelito; thus, what she said about him was purely hearsay.

THE RTC RULING

The RTC annulled the marriage under the following reasoning:

While there is no particular instance setforth (sic) in the law that a person may be considered as psychologically incapacitated, there as (sic) some admitted grounds that would render a person to be unfit to comply with his marital obligation, such as “immaturity, i.e., lack of an effective sense of rational judgment and responsibility, otherwise peculiar to infants (like refusal of the husband to support the family or excessive dependence on parents or peer group approval) and habitual alcoholism, or the condition by which a person lives for the next drink and the next drinks” (The Family Code of the Phils, Alicia Sempio-Diy, p.39, 1988 ed.)

The evidence presented by the petitioner and the testimony of the petitioner and Dr. Tayag, points (sic) to one thing that the petitioner failed to establish a harmonious family life with the respondent. On the contrary, the respondent has not shown love and respect to the petitioner manifested by the formers being irresponsible, immature, jobless, gambler, drunkard and worst of all a wife beater. The petitioner, unable to bear any longer the misbehavior and attitude of the respondent, decided, after one year and four months of messy days, to leave the respondent.

In this regard, the petitioner was able to prove that right from the start of her married life with the respondent, she already suffered from maltreatment, due to physical injuries inflicted upon her and that she was the one who worked as a housemaid of a relative of her husband to sustain the latters niece (sic) and because they were living with her husbands family, she was obliged to do the household chores an indication that she is a battered wife coupled with the fact that she served as a servant in his (sic) husbands family.

This situation that the petitioner had underwent may be attributed to the fact that at the time of their marriage, she and her husband are still young and was forced only to said marriage by her relatives. The petitioner and the respondent had never developed the feeling of love and respect, instead, the respondent blamed the petitioners family for said early marriage and not to his own liking.

Applying the principles and the requisites of psychological incapacity enunciated by this Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals, the RTC concluded:

The above findings of the psychologist [referring to the psychologist testimony quoted above] would only tend to show that the respondent was, indeed, suffering from psychological incapacity which is not only grave but also incurable.

Likewise, applying the principles set forth in the case of Republic vs. Court of Appeals and Molina, 268 SCRA 198, wherein the Supreme Court held that:

x x x x [At this point, the RTC cited the pertinent Molina ruling]

The Court is satisfied that the evidence presented and the testimony of the petitioner and Dr. Familiar (sic) [the psychologist who testified in this case was Nedy Tayag, not a Dr. Familiar] attesting that there is psychological incapacity on the part of the respondent to comply with the essential marital obligations has been sufficiently and clearly proven and, therefore, petitioner is entitled to the relief prayed for.

A claim that the marriage is valid as there is no psychological incapacity of the respondent is a speculation and conjecture and without moral certainty. This will enhanced (sic) a greater tragedy as the battered wife/petitioner will still be using the surname of the respondent, although they are now separated, and a grim and sad reminder of her husband who made here a slave and a punching bag during the short span of her marriage with him. The law on annulment should be liberally construed in favor of an innocent suffering petitioner otherwise said law will be an instrument to protect persons with mental illness like the serious anti-social behavior of herein respondent.

THE CA RULING

The Republic appealed the RTC decision to the CA. The CA reversed the RTC decision, ruling that:

True, as stated in Marcos vs Marcos 343 SCRA 755, the guidelines set in Santos vs Court of Appeals and Republic vs Court of Appeals do not require that a physician personally examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. The Supreme Court adopted the totality of evidence approach which allows the fact of psychological incapacity to be drawn from evidence that medically or clinically identify the root causes of the illness. If the totality of the evidence is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to. Applied in Marcos, however, the aggregate testimony of the aggrieved spouse, children, relatives and the social worker were not found to be sufficient to prove psychological incapacity, in the absence of any evaluation of the respondent himself, the person whose mental and psychological capacity was in question.

In the case at bench, there is much scarcer evidence to hold that the respondent was psychologically incapable of entering into the marriage state, that is, to assume the essential duties of marriage due to an underlying psychological illness. Only the wife gave first-hand testimony on the behavior of the husband, and it is inconclusive. As observed by the Court in Marcos, the respondent may have failed to provide material support to the family and has resorted to physical abuse, but it is still necessary to show that they were manifestations of a deeper psychological malaise that was clinically or medically identified. The theory of the psychologist that the respondent was suffering from an anti-social personality syndrome at the time of the marriage was not the product of any adequate medical or clinical investigation. The evidence that she got from the petitioner, anecdotal at best, could equally show that the behavior of the respondent was due simply to causes like immaturity or irresponsibility which are not equivalent to psychological incapacity, Pesca vs Pesca 356 SCRA 588, or the failure or refusal to work could have been the result of rebelliousness on the part of one who felt that he had been forced into a loveless marriage. In any event, the respondent was not under a permanent compulsion because he had later on shown his ability to engage in productive work and more stable relationships with another. The element of permanence or incurability that is one of the defining characteristic of psychological incapacity is not present.

There is no doubt that for the short period that they were under the same roof, the married life of the petitioner with the respondent was an unhappy one. But the marriage cannot for this reason be extinguished. As the Supreme Court intimates in Pesca, our strict handling of Article 36 will be a reminder of the inviolability of the marriage institution in our country and the foundation of the family that the law seeks to protect. The concept of psychological incapacity is not to be a mantra to legalize what in reality are convenient excuses of parties to separate and divorce.

THE PETITION

Jocelyn now comes to us via the present petition to challenge and seek the reversal of the CA ruling based on the following arguments:

1. The Court of Appeals went beyond what the law says, as it totally disregarded the legal basis of the RTC in declaring the marriage null and void Tuason v. Tuason (256 SCRA 158; to be accurate, should be Tuason v. Court of Appeals) holds that “the finding of the Trial Court as to the existence or non-existence of petitioners psychological incapacity at the time of the marriage is final and binding on us (the Supreme Court); petitioner has not sufficiently shown that the trial courts factual findings and evaluation of the testimonies of private respondents witnesses vis-à-vis petitioners defenses are clearly and manifestly erroneous”;

2. Article 36 of the Family Code did not define psychological incapacity; this omission was intentional to give the courts a wider discretion to interpret the term without being shackled by statutory parameters. Article 36 though was taken from Canon 1095 of the New Code of Canon Law, which gives three conditions that would make a person unable to contract marriage from mental incapacity as follows:

“1095. They are incapable of contracting marriage:

(1) who lack the sufficient use of reason;

(2) who suffer from grave lack of discretion of judgment concerning essential matrimonial rights and duties which are to be mutually given and accepted;

(3) who are not capable of assuming the essential obligations of matrimony due to causes of a psychic nature.”

The decision of the RTC, Jocelyn claims, intelligently conforms to these criteria. The RTC, being clothed with discretionary functions, applied its finding of psychological incapacity based on existing jurisprudence and the law itself which gave lower court magistrates enough latitude to define what constitutes psychological incapacity. On the contrary, she further claims, the OSG relied on generalities without being specific on why it is opposed to the dissolution of a marriage that actually exists only in name.

Simply stated, we face the issue of whether there is basis to nullify Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito under Article 36 of the Family Code.

THE COURTS RULING

We find the petition devoid of merit. The CA committed no reversible error of law in setting aside the RTC decision, as no basis exists to declare Jocelyn’s marriage with Angelito a nullity under Article 36 of the Family Code and its related jurisprudence.

The Law, Molina and Te

Article 36 of the Family Code provides that 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.

A unique feature of this law is its intended open-ended application, as it merely introduced an abstract concept psychological incapacity that disables compliance with the contractual obligations of marriage without any concrete definition or, at the very least, an illustrative example. We must therefore apply the law based on how the concept of psychological incapacity was shaped and developed in jurisprudence.

Santos v. Court of Appeals declared that psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity; (b) juridical antecedence; and (c) incurability. It should refer to “no less than a mental (not physical) incapacity that causes a party to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.” It must be confined to “the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.”

The Court laid down more definitive guidelines in the interpretation and application of the law in Republic v. Court of Appeals (Molina) as follows:

(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. This is rooted in the fact that both our Constitution and our laws cherish the validity of marriage and unity of the family. Thus, our Constitution devotes an entire Article on the Family, recognizing it “as the foundation of the nation.” It decrees marriage as legally “inviolable,” thereby protecting it from dissolution at the whim of the parties. Both the family and marriage are to be “protected” by the state.

The Family Code echoes this constitutional edict on marriage and the family and emphasizes their permanence, inviolability and solidarity.

(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. The evidence must convince the court that the parties or one of them was mentally or psychically ill to such an extent that the person could not have known the obligations he was assuming, or knowing them, could not have given valid assumption thereof. Although no example of such incapacity need be given here so as not to limit the application of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis, nevertheless such root cause must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained. Expert evidence may be given by qualified psychiatrists and clinical psychologists.

(3) The incapacity must be proven to be existing at “the time of the celebration” of the marriage. The evidence must show that the illness was existing when the parties exchanged their “I do’s.” The manifestation of the illness need not be perceivable at such time, but the illness itself must have attached at such moment, or prior thereto.

(4) Such incapacity must also be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable. Such incurability may be absolute or even relative only in regard to the other spouse, not necessarily absolutely against everyone of the same sex. Furthermore, such incapacity must be relevant to the assumption of marriage obligations, not necessarily to those not related to marriage, like the exercise of a profession or employment in a job. 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. The illness must be shown as downright incapacity or inability, not a refusal, neglect or difficulty, much less ill will. In other words, there is a natal or supervening disabling factor in the person, an adverse integral element in the personality structure that effectively incapacitates the person from really accepting and thereby complying with the obligations essential to marriage.

(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

(8) The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state. No decision shall be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification, which will be quoted in the decision, briefly stating therein his reasons for his agreement or opposition, as the case may be, to the petition. The Solicitor General, along with the prosecuting attorney, shall submit to the court such certification within fifteen (15) days from the date the case is deemed submitted for resolution of the court. The Solicitor General shall discharge the equivalent function of the defensor vinculi contemplated under Canon 1095.

Molina, subsequent jurisprudence holds, merely expounded on the basic requirements of Santos.

A later case, Marcos v. Marcos, further clarified that there is no requirement that the defendant/respondent spouse should be personally examined by a physician or psychologist as a condition sine qua non for the declaration of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity. Accordingly, it is no longer necessary to introduce expert opinion in a petition under Article 36 of the Family Code if the totality of evidence shows that psychological incapacity exists and its gravity, juridical antecedence, and incurability can be duly established.

Pesca v. Pesca clarifies that the Molina guidelines apply even to cases then already pending, under the reasoning that the courts interpretation or construction establishes the contemporaneous legislative intent of the law; the latter as so interpreted and construed would thus constitute a part of that law as of the date the statute is enacted. It is only when a

prior ruling of this Court finds itself later overruled, and a different view is adopted, that the new doctrine may have to be applied prospectively in favor of parties who have relied on the old doctrine and have acted in good faith in accordance therewith under the familiar rule of “lex prospicit, non respicit.”

On March 15, 2003, the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages (A.M. No. 08-11-10 SC, Rules) promulgated by the Court took effect. Section 2(d) of the Rules pertinently provides:

(d) What to allege. A petition under Article 36 of the Family Code shall specifically allege the complete facts showing that either or both parties were psychologically incapacitated from complying with the essential marital obligations of marriage at the time of the celebration of marriage even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its celebration.

The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage but expert opinion need not be alleged.

Section 12(d) of the Rules requires a pre-trial brief containing all the evidence presented, including expert opinion, if any, briefly stating or describing the nature and purpose of these pieces of evidence. Section 14(b) requires the court to consider during the pre-trial conference the advisability of receiving expert testimony and such other matters as may aid in the prompt disposition of the petition. Under Section 17 of the Rules, the grounds for the declaration of the absolute nullity or annulment of marriage must be proved.

All cases involving the application of Article 36 of the Family Code that came to us were invariably decided based on the principles in the cited cases. This was the state of law and jurisprudence on Article 36 when the Court decided Te v. Yu-Te (Te) which revisited the Molina guidelines.

Te begins with the observation that the Committee that drafted the Family Code did not give any examples of psychological incapacity for fear that by so doing, it would limit the applicability of the provision under the principle of ejusdem generis; that the Committee desired that the courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, by the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals that, although not binding on the civil courts, may be given persuasive effect since the provision itself was taken from the Canon Law. Te thus assumes it a basic premise that the law is so designed to allow some resiliency in its application.

Te then sustained Santos doctrinal value, saying that its interpretation is consistent with that of the Canon Law.

Going back to its basic premise, Te said:

Conscious of the laws intention that it is the courts, on a case-to-case basis, that should determine whether a party to a marriage is psychologically incapacitated, the Court, in

sustaining the lower courts judgment of annulment in Tuason v. Court of Appeals, ruled that the findings of the trial court are final and binding on the appellate courts.

Again, upholding the trial courts findings and declaring that its decision was not a judgment on the pleadings, the Court, in Tsoi v. Court of Appeals, explained that when private respondent testified under oath before the lower court and was cross-examined by the adverse party, she thereby presented evidence in the form of testimony. Importantly, the Court, aware of parallel decisions of Catholic marriage tribunals, ruled that the senseless and protracted refusal of one of the parties to fulfill the marital obligation of procreating children is equivalent to psychological incapacity.

With this as backdrop, Te launched an attack on Molina. It said that the resiliency with which the concept should be applied and the case-to-case basis by which the provision should be interpreted, as so intended by its framers, had, somehow, been rendered ineffectual by the imposition of a set of strict standards in Molina. Molina, to Te, has become a strait-jacket, forcing all sizes to fit into and be bound by it; wittingly or unwittingly, the Court, in conveniently applying Molina, has allowed diagnosed sociopaths, schizophrenics, nymphomaniacs, narcissists and the like, to continuously debase and pervert the sanctity of marriage.

Te then enunciated the principle that each case must be judged, not on the basis of a priori assumptions, predilections or generalizations, but according to its own facts. Courts should interpret the provision on a case-to-case basis, guided by experience, the findings of experts and researchers in psychological disciplines, and by decisions of church tribunals.

As a final note though, Te expressly stated that it is not suggesting the abandonment of Molina, but that, following Antonio v. Reyes, it merely looked at other perspectives that should also govern the disposition of petitions for declaration of nullity under Article 36. The subsequent Ting v. Velez-Ting follows Tes lead when it reiterated that Te did not abandon Molina; far from abandoning Molina, it simply suggested the relaxation of its stringent requirements, cognizant of the explanation given by the Committee on the Revision of the Rules on the rationale of the Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages:

To require the petitioner to allege in the petition the particular root cause of the psychological incapacity and to attach thereto the verified written report of an accredited psychologist or psychiatrist have proved to be too expensive for the parties. They adversely affect access to justice of poor litigants. It is also a fact that there are provinces where these experts are not available. Thus, the Committee deemed it necessary to relax this stringent requirement enunciated in the Molina Case. The need for the examination of a party or parties by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist and the presentation of psychiatric experts shall now be determined by the court during the pre-trial conference.

Te, therefore, instead of substantially departing from Molina, merely stands for a more flexible approach in considering petitions for declaration of nullity of marriages based on psychological incapacity. It is also noteworthy for its evidentiary approach in these cases, which it expounded on as follows:

By the very nature of Article 36, courts, despite having the primary task and burden of decision-making, must not discount but, instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the psychological and mental temperaments of the parties.

x x x x

Hernandez v. Court of Appeals emphasizes the importance of presenting expert testimony to establish the precise cause of a party’s psychological incapacity, and to show that it existed at the inception of the marriage. And as Marcos v. Marcos asserts, there is no requirement that the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated be personally examined by a physician, if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity. Verily, the evidence must show a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself.

This is not to mention, but we mention nevertheless for emphasis, that the presentation of expert proof presupposes a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a grave, severe and incurable presence of psychological incapacity.Underscoring supplied]

This evidentiary approach is repeated in Ting v. Velez-Ting.

Under this evolutionary development, as shown by the current string of cases on Article 36 of the Family Code, what should not be lost on us is the intention of the law to confine the application of Article 36 to the most serious cases of personality disorders, clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage; that the psychological illness that must have afflicted a party at the inception of the marriage should be a malady so grave and permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond he or she is about to assume. It is not enough that the respondent, alleged to be psychologically incapacitated, had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations. Proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor an adverse integral element in the respondent’s personality structure that effectively incapacitated him from complying with his essential marital obligations must be shown. Mere difficulty, refusal or neglect in the performance of marital obligations or ill will on the part of the spouse is different from incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness; irreconcilable differences, sexual infidelity or perversion, emotional immaturity and irresponsibility and the like, do not by themselves warrant a finding of psychological incapacity under Article 36, as the same may only be due to a persons refusal or unwillingness to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

If all these sound familiar, they do, for they are but iterations of Santos juridical antecedence, gravity and incurability requisites. This is proof of Santos continuing doctrinal validity.

The Present Case

As the CA did, we find Jocelyn’s evidence insufficient to establish Angelito’s psychological incapacity to perform essential marital obligations. We so conclude based on our own examination of the evidence on record, which we were compelled to undertake because of the differences in the trial court and the appellate courts appreciation and evaluation of Jocelyn’s presented evidence.

a. The Expert Opinion Evidence

Both the psychologist’s testimony and the psychological report did not conclusively show the root cause, gravity and incurability of Angelito’s alleged psychological condition.

We first note a critical factor in appreciating or evaluating the expert opinion evidence the psychologist’s testimony and the psychological evaluation report that Jocelyn presented. Based on her declarations in open court, the psychologist evaluated Angelito’s psychological condition only in an indirect manner she derived all her conclusions from information coming from Jocelyn whose bias for her cause cannot of course be doubted. Given the source of the information upon which the psychologist heavily relied upon, the court must evaluate the evidentiary worth of the opinion with due care and with the application of the more rigid and stringent set of standards outlined above, i.e., that there must be a thorough and in-depth assessment of the parties by the psychologist or expert, for a conclusive diagnosis of a psychological incapacity that is grave, severe and incurable.

In saying this, we do not suggest that a personal examination of the party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated is mandatory; jurisprudence holds that this type of examination is not a mandatory requirement. While such examination is desirable, we recognize that it may not be practical in all instances given the oftentimes estranged relations between the parties. For a determination though of a party’s complete personality profile, information coming from persons intimately related to him (such as the party’s close relatives and friends) may be helpful. This is an approach in the application of Article 36 that allows flexibility, at the same time that it avoids, if not totally obliterate, the credibility gaps spawned by supposedly expert opinion based entirely on doubtful sources of information.

From these perspectives, we conclude that the psychologist, using meager information coming from a directly interested party, could not have secured a complete personality profile and could not have conclusively formed an objective opinion or diagnosis of Angelito’s psychological condition. While the report or evaluation may be conclusive with respect to Jocelyn’s psychological condition, this is not true for Angelito’s. The methodology employed simply cannot satisfy the required depth and comprehensiveness of examination required to evaluate a party alleged to be suffering from a psychological disorder. In short, this is not the psychological report that the Court can rely on as basis for the conclusion that psychological incapacity exists.

Other than this credibility or reliability gap, both the psychologists report and testimony simply provided a general description of Angelito’s purported anti-social personality disorder, supported by the characterization of this disorder as chronic, grave and incurable. The psychologist was conspicuously silent, however, on the bases for her conclusion or the

particulars that gave rise to the characterization she gave. These particulars are simply not in the Report, and neither can they be found in her testimony.

For instance, the psychologist testified that Angelito’s personality disorder is chronic or incurable; Angelito has long been afflicted with the disorder prior to his marriage with Jocelyn or even during his early developmental stage, as basic trust was not developed. However, she did not support this declaration with any factual basis. In her Report, she based her conclusion on the presumption that Angelito apparently grew up in a dysfunctional family. Quite noticeable, though, is the psychologists own equivocation on this point she was not firm in her conclusion for she herself may have realized that it was simply conjectural. The veracity, too, of this finding is highly suspect, for it was based entirely on Jocelyn’s assumed knowledge of Angelito’s family background and upbringing.

Additionally, the psychologist merely generalized on the questions of why and to what extent was Angelito’s personality disorder grave and incurable, and on the effects of the disorder on Angelito’s awareness of and his capability to undertake the duties and responsibilities of marriage.

The psychologist therefore failed to provide the answers to the more important concerns or requisites of psychological incapacity, all of which are critical to the success of Jocelyn’s cause.

b. Jocelyn’s Testimony

The inadequacy and/or lack of probative value of the psychological report and the psychologists testimony impel us to proceed to the evaluation of Jocelyn’s testimony, to find out whether she provided the court with sufficient facts to support a finding of Angelito’s psychological incapacity.

Unfortunately, we find Jocelyn’s testimony to be insufficient. Jocelyn merely testified on Angelito’s habitual drunkenness, gambling, refusal to seek employment and the physical beatings she received from him all of which occurred after the marriage. Significantly, she declared in her testimony that Angelito showed no signs of violent behavior, assuming this to be indicative of a personality disorder, during the courtship stage or at the earliest stages of her relationship with him. She testified on the alleged physical beatings after the marriage, not before or at the time of the celebration of the marriage. She did not clarify when these beatings exactly took place whether it was near or at the time of celebration of the marriage or months or years after. This is a clear evidentiary gap that materially affects her cause, as the law and its related jurisprudence require that the psychological incapacity must exist at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

Habitual drunkenness, gambling and refusal to find a job, while indicative of psychological incapacity, do not, by themselves, show psychological incapacity. All these simply indicate difficulty, neglect or mere refusal to perform marital obligations that, as the cited jurisprudence holds, cannot be considered to be constitutive of psychological incapacity in the absence of proof that these are manifestations of an incapacity rooted in some debilitating psychological condition or illness.

The physical violence allegedly inflicted on Jocelyn deserves a different treatment. While we may concede that physical violence on women indicates abnormal behavioral or personality patterns, such violence, standing alone, does not constitute psychological incapacity. Jurisprudence holds that there must be evidence showing a link, medical or the like, between the acts that manifest psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder itself. The evidence of this nexus is irretrievably lost in the present case under our finding that the opinion of the psychologist cannot be relied upon. Even assuming, therefore, that Jocelyn’s account of the physical beatings she received from Angelito were true, this evidence does not satisfy the requirement of Article 36 and its related jurisprudence, specifically the Santos requisites.

On the whole, the CA correctly reversed the RTC judgment, whose factual bases we now find to be clearly and manifestly erroneous. Our ruling in Tuason recognizing the finality of the factual findings of the trial court in Article 36 cases (which is Jocelyn’s main anchor in her present appeal with us) does not therefore apply in this case. We find that, on the contrary, the CA correctly applied Article 36 and its related jurisprudence to the facts and the evidence of the present case.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, we DENY the petition for lack of merit. We AFFIRM the appealed Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 62443. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice

G.R. No. 167139 : February 25, 2010

SUSIE CHAN-TAN, Petitioner, vs. JESSE C. TAN, Respondent. 

 

D E C I S I O N

CARPIO, J.:

 

The Case

This is a petition for review[1] of (i) the 17 May 2004 Resolution[2] amending the 30 March 2004 Decision[3] and (ii) the 15 February 2005 Resolution[4] of the RegionalTrial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, in Civil Case No. Q-01-45743. In its 30 March 2004 Decision, the trial court declared the marriage between petitioner Susie Chan-Tan and respondent Jesse Tan void under Article 36 of the Family Code. Incorporated as part of the decision was the 31 July 2003 Partial Judgment[5] approving the Compromise Agreement[6] of the parties. In its 17 May 2004 Resolution, the trial court granted to respondent custody of the children, ordered petitioner to turn over to respondent documents and titles in the latter’s name, and allowed respondent to stay in the family dwelling. In its 15 February 2005 Resolution, the trial court denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the 28 December 2004 Resolution[7] denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the 12 October 2004 Resolution,[8] which in turn denied for late filing petitioner's motion for reconsideration of the 17 May 2004 resolution.

The Facts

Petitioner and respondent were married in June of 1989 at Manila Cathedral in Intramuros, Manila.[9] They were blessed with two sons: Justin, who was born in Canada in 1990 and Russel, who was born in the Philippines in 1993.[10]

In 2001, twelve years into the marriage, petitioner filed a case for the annulment of the marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code. The parties submitted to the court a compromise agreement, which we quote in full:

1.      The herein parties mutually agreed that the two (2) lots located at Corinthian Hills, Quezon City and more particularly described in the Contract to Sell, marked in open court as Exhibits “H” to “H-3” shall be considered as part of the presumptive legitimes of their two (2) minor children namely, Justin Tan born on October 12, 1990 and Russel Tan born on November 28, 1993. Copies of the Contract to Sell are hereto attached as Annexes “A” and “B” and made integral parts hereof.

2.      Susie Tan hereby voluntarily agrees to exclusively shoulder and pay out of her own funds/assets whatever is the remaining balance or unpaid amounts on said lots mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof directly with Megaworld Properties, Inc., until the whole purchase or contract amounts are fully paid.

Susie Tan is hereby authorized and empowered to directly negotiate, transact, pay and deal with the seller/developer Megaworld Properties, Inc., in connection with the Contract to Sell marked as Annexes “A” and “B” hereof.

The property coveredby CCT No. 3754 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and located at Unit O, Richmore Town Homes 12-B Mariposa St., Quezon City shall be placed in co-ownership under the name of Susie Tan (1/3), Justin Tan (1/3) and Russel Tan (1/3) to the exclusion of Jesse Tan.

The property covered by TCT No. 48137 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and located at View Master Town Homes, 1387 Quezon Avenue, Quezon City shall be exclusively owned by Jesse Tan to the exclusion of Susie Tan.

The undivided interest in the Condominium Unit in Cityland Shaw. Jesse Tan shall exclusively own blvd. to the exclusion of Susie Tan.

The shares of stocks, bank accounts and other properties presently under the respective names of Jesse Tan and Susie Tan shall be exclusively owned by the spouse whose name appears as the registered/account owner or holder in the corporate records/stock transfer books, passbooks and/or the one in possession thereof, including the dividends/fruits thereof, to the exclusion of the other spouse.

Otherwise stated, all shares, bank accounts and properties registered and under the name and/or in the possession of Jesse Tan shall be exclusively owned by him only and all shares, accounts and properties registered and/or in the possession and under the name of Susie Tan shall be exclusively owned by her only.

However, as to the family corporations of Susie Tan, Jesse Tan shall execute any and all documents transferring the shares of stocks registered in his name in favor of Susie Tan, or Justin Tan/Russel Tan. A copy of the list of the corporation owned by the family of Susie Tan is hereto attached as Annex “C” and made an integral part hereof.

The parties shall voluntarily and without need of demand turn over to the other spouse any and all original documents, papers, titles, contracts registered in the name of the other spouse that are in their respective possessions and/or safekeeping.

3.      Thereafter and upon approval of this Compromise Agreement by the Honorable Court, the existing property regime of the spouses shall be dissolved and shall now be governed by “Complete Separation of Property”. Parties expressly represent that there are no known creditors that will be prejudiced by the present compromise agreement.

The parties shall have joint custody of their minor children. However, the two (2) minor children shall stay with their mother, Susie Tan at 12-B Mariposa St., Quezon City.

The husband, Jesse Tan, shall have the right to bring out the two (2) children every Sunday of each month from 8:00 AM to 9:00 PM. The minor children shall be returned to 12-B Mariposa Street, Quezon City on or before 9:00 PM of every Sunday of each month.

The husband shall also have the right to pick up the two (2) minor children in school/or in the house every Thursday of each month. The husband shall ensure that the children be home by 8:00 PM of said Thursdays.

During the summer vacation/semestral break or Christmas vacation of the children, the parties shall discuss the proper arrangement to be made regarding the stay of the children with Jesse Tan.

Neither party shall put any obstacle in the way of the maintenance of the love and affection between the children and the other party, or in the way of a reasonable and proper companionship between them, either by influencing the children against the other, or otherwise; nor shall they do anything to estrange any of them from the other.

The parties agreed to observe civility, courteousness and politeness in dealing with each other and shall not insult, malign or commit discourteous acts against each other and shall endeavor to cause their other relatives to act similarly.

4.      Likewise, the husband shall have the right to bring out and see the children on the following additional dates, provided that the same will not impede or disrupt their academic schedule in Xavier School, the dates are as follows:

a. Birthday of Jesse Tan

b. Birthday of Grandfather and Grandmother, first cousins and uncles and aunties

c. Father's Day

d. Death Anniversaries of immediate members of the family of Jesse Tan

e. During the Christmas seasons/vacation the herein parties will agree on such dates as when the children can stay with their father. Provided that if the children stay with their father on Christmas Day from December 24thto December 25thuntil 1:00 PM the children will stay with their mother on December 31 until January 1, 1:00 PM, or vice versa.

The husband shall always be notified of all school activities of the children and shall see to it that he will exert his best effort to attend the same.

5.      During the birthdays of the two (2) minor children, the parties shallas far as practicable have one celebration.

Provided that if the same is not possible, the Husband (Jesse Tan) shall have the right to see and bring out the children for at least four (4) hours during the day or the day immediately following/or after the birthday, if said visit or birthday coincides with the school day.

6.      The existing Educational Plans of the two children shall be used and utilized for their High School and College education, in the event that the Educational Plans are insufficient to cover their tuition, the Husband shall shoulder the tuition and other miscellaneous fees, costs of books and educational materials, uniform, school bags, shoes and similar expenses like summer workshops which are taken in Xavier School, which will be paid directly by Jesse Tan to the children's school when the same fall due. Jesse Tan, if necessary, shall pay tutorial expenses, directly to the tutor concerned.

The husband further undertake to pay P10,000.00/monthly support pendente lite to be deposited in the ATM Account of SUSIE CHAN with account no. 3-189-53867-8 Boni

Serrano Branch effective on the 15thof each month. In addition Jesse Tan undertakes to give directly to his two (2) sons every Sunday, the amount needed and necessary for the purpose of the daily meals of the two (2) children in school.

7.      This Compromise Agreement is not against the law, customs, public policy,public order and good morals. Parties hereby voluntarily agree and bind themselves to execute and sign any and all documents to give effect to this Compromise Agreement.[11]

On 31 July 2003, the trial court issued a partial judgment[12] approving the compromise agreement. On 30 March 2004, the trial court rendered a decision declaring the marriage void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity of the parties. The trial court incorporated in its decision the compromise agreement of the parties on the issues of support, custody, visitation of the children, and property relations.

Meanwhile, petitioner cancelled the offer to purchase the Corinthian Hills Subdivision Lot No. 12, Block 2. She authorized Megaworld Corp. to allocate the amount of P11,992,968.32 so far paid on the said lot in the following manner:

(a) P3,656,250.04 shall be transferred to fully pay the other lot in Corinthian Hills on Lot 11, Block 2;

(b) P7,783,297.56 shall be transferred to fully pay the contract price in Unit 9H of the 8 Wack Wack Road Condominium project; and

(c) P533,420.72 shall be forfeited in favor of Megaworld Corp. to cover the marketing and administrative costs of Corinthian Hills Subdivision Lot 12, Block 2.[13]

Petitioner authorized Megaworld Corp. to offer Lot 12, Block 2 of Corinthian Hills to other interested buyers. It also appears from the records that petitioner left the country bringing the children with her.

Respondent filed an omnibus motion seeking in the main custody of the children. The evidence presented by respondent established that petitioner brought the children out of the country without his knowledge and without prior authority of the trial court; petitioner failed to pay the P8,000,000 remaining balance for the Megaworld property which, if forfeited would prejudice the interest of the children; and petitioner failed to turn over to respondent documents and titles in the latter’s name.

Thus, the trial court, in its 17 May 2004 resolution, awarded to respondent custody of the children, ordered petitioner to turn over to respondent documents and titles in the latter’s name, and allowed respondent to stay in the family dwelling in Mariposa, Quezon City.

Petitioner filed on 28 June 2004 a motion for reconsideration[14] alleging denial of due process on account of accident, mistake, or excusable negligence. She alleged she was not able to present evidence because of the negligence of her counsel and her own fear for her life and the future of the children. She claimed she was forced to leave the country, together with her children, due to the alleged beating she received from respondent and the

pernicious effects of the latter’s supposed gambling and womanizing ways. She prayed for an increase in respondent’s monthly support obligation in the amount of P150,000.

Unconvinced, the trial court, in its 12 October 2004 Resolution,[15] denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration, which was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period. It also declared petitioner in contempt of court for non-compliance with the partial judgment and the 17 May 2004 resolution. The trial court also denied petitioner’s prayer for increase in monthly support. The trial court reasoned that since petitioner took it upon herself to enroll the children in another school without respondent’s knowledge, she should therefore defray the resulting increase in their expenses.

On 4 November 2004, petitioner filed a motion to dismiss[16] and a motion for reconsideration[17] of the 12 October 2004 Resolution. She claimed she was no longer interested in the suit. Petitioner stated that the circumstances in her life had led her to the conclusion that withdrawing the petition was for the best interest of the children. She prayed that an order be issued vacating all prior orders and leaving the parties at the status quo ante the filing of the suit.

In its 28 December 2004 Resolution,[18] the trial court denied both the motion to dismiss and the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner. It held that the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution had become final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period without any timely appeal having been filed by either party.

Undeterred, petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of the 28 December 2004 resolution, which the trial court denied in its 15 February 2005 resolution.[19] The trial court then issued a Certificate of Finality[20] of the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution.

The Trial Court’s Rulings

The 30 March 2004 Decision[21] declared the marriage between the parties void under Article 36 of the Family Code on the ground of mutual psychological incapacity. It incorporated the 31 July 2003 Partial Judgment[22] approving the Compromise Agreement[23] between the parties. The 17 May 2004 Resolution[24] amended the earlier partial judgment in granting to respondent custody of the children, ordering petitioner to turn over to respondent documents and titles in the latter’s name, and allowing respondent to stay in the family dwelling in Mariposa, Quezon City. The15 February 2005 Resolution[25] denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the 28 December 2004 Resolution[26] denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss and motion for reconsideration of the 12 October 2004 Resolution,[27] which in turn denied for late filing petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the 17 May 2004 resolution.

The Issue

Petitioner raises the question of whether the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004

resolution of the trial court have attained finality despite the alleged denial of due process.

The Court’s Ruling

The petition has no merit.

Petitioner contends she was denied due process when her counsel failed to file pleadings and appear at the hearings for respondent’s omnibus motion to amend the partial judgment as regards the custody of the children and the properties inher possession. Petitioner claims the trial court issued the 17 May 2004 resolution relying solely on the testimony of respondent. Petitioner further claims the trial court erred in applying to her motion to dismissSection 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages. Petitioner argues that if indeed the provision is applicable, the same is unconstitutional for setting an obstacle to the preservation of the family.

Respondent maintains that the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court are now final and executory and could no longer be reviewed, modified, or vacated. Respondent alleges petitioner is making a mockery of our justice system in disregarding our lawful processes. Respondent stresses neither petitioner nor her counsel appeared in court at the hearings on respondent's omnibus motion or on petitioner’s motion to dismiss.

The issue raised in this petition has been settled in the case of Tuason v. Court of Appeals. [28] In Tuason , private respondent therein filed a petition for the annulment of her marriage on the ground of her husband’spsychological incapacity. There, the trial court rendered judgment declaring the nullity of the marriage and awarding custody of the children to private respondent therein. No timely appeal was taken from the trial court’s judgment.

We held that the decision annulling the marriage had already become final and executory when the husband failed to appeal during the reglementary period. The husband claimed that the decision of the trial court was null and void for violation of his right to due process. He argued he was denied due process when, after failing to appear on two scheduled hearings, the trial court deemed him to have waived his right to present evidence and rendered judgment based solely on the evidence presented by private respondent. Weupheld the judgment of nullity of the marriage even if it was based solely on evidence presented by therein private respondent.

We also ruled in Tuason that notice sent to the counsel of record is binding upon the client and the neglect or failure of the counsel to inform the client of an adverse judgment resulting in the loss of the latter’s right to appeal is not a ground for setting aside a judgment valid and regular on its face.[29]

In the present case, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court had become final and executory upon the lapse of the reglementary period to appeal.[30]

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration of the 17 May 2004 resolution, which the trial court received on 28 June 2004, was clearly filed out of time. Applying the doctrine laid down in Tuason , the alleged negligence of counsel resulting in petitioner’s loss of the right to appeal is not a ground for vacating the trial court’s judgments.

Further, petitioner cannot claim that she was denied due process. While she may have lost her right to present evidence due to the supposed negligence of her counsel,she cannot say she was denied her day in court. Records show petitioner, through counsel, actively participated in the proceedings below, filing motion after motion.Contrary to petitioner’s allegation of negligence of her counsel, we have reason to believe the negligence in pursuing the case was on petitioner’s end, as may be gleaned from her counsel’s manifestation dated 3 May 2004:

Undersigned Counsel, who appeared for petitioner, in the nullity proceedings, respectfully informs the Honorable Court that she has not heard from petitioner since Holy Week. Attempts to call petitioner have failed.

Undersigned counsel regrets therefore that she is unable to respond in an intelligent manner to the Motion (Omnibus Motion) filed by respondent.[31]

Clearly, despite her counsel’s efforts to reach her, petitioner showed utter disinterest in the hearings on respondent’s omnibus motion seeking, among others, custody of the children. The trial judge was left with no other recourse but to proceed with the hearings and rule on the motion based on the evidence presented by respondent. Petitioner cannot now come to this Court crying denial of due process.

As for the applicability to petitioner’s motion to dismiss of Section 7 of the Rule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, petitioner is correct. Section 7 of theRule on the Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages provides:

SEC. 7. Motion to dismiss. – No motion to dismiss the petition shall be allowed except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or over the parties; provided, however, that any other ground that might warrant a dismissal of the case may be raised as anaffirmative defense in an answer. (Emphasis supplied)

The clear intent of the provision is to allow the respondent to ventilate all possible defenses in an answer, instead of a mere motion to dismiss, so that judgment may be made on the merits. In construing a statute, the purpose or object of the law is an important factor to be considered.[32] Further, the letter of the law admits of no other interpretation but that the provision applies only to a respondent, not a petitioner. Only a respondent in a petition forthe declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage or the annulment of voidable marriage files an answer where any ground that may warrant a dismissal may be raised as an affirmative defense pursuant to the provision. The only logical conclusion is that Section 7 of the Rule does not apply to a motion to dismiss filed by the party who initiated the petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage or the annulment of voidable marriage.

Since petitioner is not the respondent in the petition for the annulment of the marriage, Section 7 of the Rule does not apply to the motion to dismiss filed by her. Section 7 of the Rule not being applicable, petitioner’s claim that it is unconstitutional for allegedly setting an obstacle to the preservation of the family is without basis.

Section 1 of the Rule states that the Rules of Court applies suppletorily to a petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of void marriage or the annulment of voidable marriage. In this connection, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court allows dismissal of the action upon notice or upon motion of the plaintiff, to wit:

Section 1. Dismissal upon notice by plaintiff . – A complaint may be dismissed by the plaintiff by filing a notice of dismissal at any time before service of the answer or of a motion for summary judgment. Upon such notice being filed, the court shall issue an order confirming the dismissal. x x x

Section 2. Dismissal upon motion of plaintiff . – Except as provided in the preceding section, a complaint shall not be dismissed at the plaintiff’s instance save upon approval of the court and upon such terms and conditions as the court deems proper.x x x (Emphasis supplied)

However, when petitioner filed the motion to dismiss on 4 November 2004, the 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution of the trial court had long become final and executory upon the lapse of the 15-day reglementary period without any timely appeal having been filed by either party. The 30 March 2004 decision and the 17 May 2004 resolution may no longer be disturbed on account of the belated motion to dismiss filed by petitioner. The trial court was correct in denying petitioner’s motion to dismiss.Nothing is more settled in law than that when a judgment becomes final and executory, it becomes immutable and unalterable. The same may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct what is perceived to be an erroneous conclusion of fact or law.[33] The reason is grounded on the fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice that, at the risk of occasional error, the judgments or orders of courts must be final at some definite date fixed by law. Once a judgment has become final and executory, the issues there should be laid to rest.[34]

WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review.We AFFIRMthe (i) 17 May 2004 Resolution amending the 30 March 2004 Decision and(ii) the 15 February 2005 Resolution of theRegional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 107, in Civil Case No. Q-01-45743.

Costs against petitioner..