By Atty. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
LEONORA DELA CRUZ-LANUZA VS. ALFREDO LANUZA, G.R. NO. 242362 (APRIL 17, 2024): INFIDELITY, LACK OF SUPPORT AND UNJUSTIFIED ABSENCE FROM HIS FAMILY FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME INDICATIVE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY
Petitioner Leonora and respondent Alfredo married on sometime on June 1984. They were blessed with four children. However, Alfredo’s behavior changed, and he would come home late or early morning after a night out with friends. He neglected his duty and did not provide food for the family. He treated Leonora as an ordinary occupant of the house, not his wife. Alfredo also engaged in illicit affairs. In 1994, they separated. Later, Alfredo contracted another marriage to a certain Mary Ann Makalintal in Quezon City. Leonora filed a Bigamy case but was archived as Alfredo could not be located. Alfredo contracted another, a third marriage, to Jane Alejo as evidenced by pictures posted on Facebook. Alfredo and Jane later remarried in a church wedding.
Leonora filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage based on the lack of a valid marriage license and for psychological incapacity. Leonora alleged that Alfredo abandoned them, did not provide support and only showed up once during the graduation of one of their children but only for an hour. The Regional Trial Court, however, denied the petition stating that evidence to prove of Alfredo’s subsequent marriages were insufficient. Assuming that these marriages will be proven, the trial court held that it only establishes infidelity, which is insufficient to establish psychological incapacity. The trial court also doubted the findings of the psychological report as the said supposedly lacked particulars and were only generally related to Alfredo’s condition.
Leonora filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 of the Rules of Court before the Court of Appeals but was denied for being a wrong remedy and the appellate court was unconvinced that the ruling of the lower court is erroneous. Leonora filed a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court which was granted.
In the Decision, the Supreme Court restated the ruling in Tan-Andal vs. Andal, G.R. No. 196350 (11 May 2021) on what is psychological incapacity which consists of clear acts of dysfunctionality that show a lack of understanding and concomitant compliance with one’s essential marital obligations due to psychic causes. It is not a medical illness that has to be medically or clinically identified, hence, expert opinion is not required. Instead of being a medical illness, psychological incapacity is a durable or enduring aspect of a person’s personality called “personality structure”, which manifests itself through clear acts of dysfunctionality that undermines the family. In short, it is a legal, not a medical concept.
In deciding the instant case, the Court cited Article 220 of the Family Code which lists the obligations of parents to their children, the obligations which Alfredo failed to comply with. The Court held that based on the facts, Alfredo left his family in 1994 and appears to have contracted marriage several times, with different women. He never gave financial support to his children and only visited them once, for less than an hour. Hence, these indicate that Alfredo did not understand his obligations as a husband and a father.
Citing Georfo vs. Republic, G.R. No. 24633 (06 March 2023), which reiterated Tan-Andal vs. Andal, supra, the Court also held that “it is accepted practice in psychiatry to base a person’s psychiatric history on collateral information, or information sources aside from the person evaluated.” Hence, the Court held that it is inconsequential if the psychologist interviewed only Leonora, her sister and their daughter in lieu of Alfredo.
In ruling that his psychological incapacity is grave, incurable and has juridical antecedence, the Court held:
“His personality disorder appears to have been fostered by how he was raised by his family as ‘he was deprived of appropriate parental supervision and guidance’ and ‘his parents’ lenient and tolerable attitude encouraged him to become extremely assertive.’ This shows that there is juridical antecedence. His psychological incapacity developed during his formative years and existed prior to his marriage to petitioner.
The incurability of respondent’s personality disorder was also explained by Ison when he stated in his Judicial Affidavit that those who are diagnosed with narcissistic personality disorder ‘deny that they are mentally ill, reject the idea of seeking professional help and therefore refuse any form of psychiatric treatment.
Respondent’s infidelity, failure to give support to his wife and children, and unjustified absence for his family are all indicative that he is not cognizant of the duties and responsibilities of a husband and father.”