View full case

MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE v. RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE

FACTS:

Maria Teresa B. Tani-De La Fuente filed a petition for the nullity of her marriage with Rodolfo De La Fuente Jr. Maria Teresa alleged that Rodolfo displayed controlling behavior, jealousy, and even pointed a gun at her. She also claimed that Rodolfo treated her as a sex slave and engaged in non-consensual sexual acts. Maria Teresa sought help from various individuals, including a doctor, a lawyer, and a priest, but Rodolfo refused counseling. Maria Teresa left Rodolfo and their home in 1986.

In 1999, Maria Teresa filed a petition for the nullity of their marriage. The trial court granted her motion for revival of the petition and presented Dr. Arnulfo V. Lopez as an expert witness. Dr. Lopez diagnosed Rodolfo with paranoid personality disorder, a severe form of personality disorder, which he believed was caused by a pathogenic parental model. According to Dr. Lopez, Rodolfo's disorder was serious, incurable, and manifested through damaging behavior.

Rodolfo did not participate in the proceedings despite being invited. The trial court deemed his non-appearance as a waiver of his right to present evidence. The trial court granted Maria Teresa's petition and declared the marriage null and void based on Dr. Lopez's findings.

The Office of the Solicitor General failed to comply with the trial court's orders and did not submit its certification and comment. The trial court denied the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Solicitor General.

The Court of Appeals granted the appeal and dismissed the petition for declaration of nullity of the marriage.

Maria Teresa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari and argued that the trial court had wider discretion on whether expert opinion was needed to prove psychological incapacity and that as long as there was a basis for concluding that it existed, such conclusion should be upheld. Rodolfo did not oppose the petition.

The Office of the Solicitor General agreed that a physician was not required to declare a person psychologically incapacitated but emphasized the need for adequate evidence to prove its presence.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in denying the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage due to insufficient evidence of psychological incapacity.

  2. Whether the finding of psychological incapacity based solely on information given by the petitioner to the psychologist should be dismissed as hearsay.

  3. Whether there was sufficient compliance with the requirements set forth in Republic v. Molina to declare the marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity.

  4. Whether it is necessary for a psychiatrist or medical doctor to testify on the alleged psychological incapacity of one party.

  5. Whether respondent's psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations was sufficiently proven.

  6. Whether respondent's psychological incapacity was incurable and severe.

  7. Whether respondent's repeated acts of harassment towards petitioner constitute coercive control.

  8. Whether the application of the Molina guidelines in determining psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage is too stringent.

  9. Whether the marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De La Fuente and Rodolfo De La Fuente is null and void.

RULING:

  1. The Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage is granted. The Court finds that the evidence presented by the petitioner is sufficient to prove that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.

  2. The Supreme Court found that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements set forth in Republic v. Molina to declare the marriage null and void based on psychological incapacity. The petitioner was able to discharge the burden of proof that the respondent suffered from psychological incapacity.

  3. The Supreme Court held that it is not necessary for a psychiatrist or medical doctor to personally examine and testify on the alleged psychological incapacity of one party. The totality of evidence presented, including the findings of an examining psychiatrist or psychologist, can establish the party's psychological condition.

  4. Yes, respondent's psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations was sufficiently proven. The juridical antecedence of respondent's psychological incapacity was proven and affirmed by petitioner's testimony, stating that she noticed respondent's jealousy even before their marriage and his extreme and severe jealousy and paranoia during their marriage, culminating in him poking a gun at her head. The court also considered the expert testimony of Dr. Lopez, who explained that respondent's psychological disorder likely developed during his childhood and adolescent years.

  5. Yes, respondent's psychological incapacity was proven to be incurable and severe. Dr. Lopez testified that a person with paranoid personality disorder, like respondent, would refuse to admit that there was something wrong and that there was a need for treatment. This was corroborated by petitioner's testimony that respondent repeatedly refused treatment and professional help. Respondent's refusal to undergo examination by Dr. Lopez further supports the finding of incurability.

  6. Yes, respondent's repeated acts of harassment towards petitioner constitute coercive control. The court recognized respondent's behavior as a classic case of coercive control, which is a form of psychological abuse. Respondent's acts of intimidation, stalking, and isolating petitioner from her family and friends, as well as escalating to physical violence, demonstrate his need to dominate and control her. This form of psychological abuse is recognized and prohibited under the Anti-Violence Against Women and Children Act of 2004.

  7. The application of the Molina guidelines in determining psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage is too stringent. It has resulted in the perversion of the family unit, which is the very institution that laws are meant to protect.

  8. The marriage of Maria Teresa Tani-De La Fuente and Rodolfo De La Fuente is declared null and void. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-99-37829 is reinstated.

PRINCIPLES:

  • The burden of proof to show the nullity of 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.

  • The root cause of the psychological incapacity must be medically or clinically identified, alleged in the complaint, sufficiently proven by experts, and clearly explained in the decision.

  • The incapacity must be proven to be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage.

  • The incapacity must be shown to be medically or clinically permanent or incurable.

  • The illness must be grave enough to bring about the disability of the party to assume the essential obligations of marriage.

  • 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.

  • Interpretations given by the National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal of the Catholic Church in the Philippines should be given great respect by the courts.

  • Canonically invalid marriages should also be decreed civilly void.

  • The State and the Church shall walk together in synodal cadence towards the same goal of protecting and cherishing marriage and the family.

  • The trial court must order the prosecuting attorney or fiscal and the Solicitor General to appear as counsel for the state, and the decision cannot be handed down unless the Solicitor General issues a certification stating his reasons for agreement or opposition to the petition.

  • The non-examination of one of the parties will not automatically render the findings of the examining psychiatrist or psychologist as hearsay or invalid.

  • The totality of evidence presented, including the findings of an examining psychiatrist or psychologist, can establish the party's psychological condition.

  • Courts must give due regard to expert opinion on the psychological and mental disposition of the parties in cases of annulment based on psychological incapacity.

  • Article 68 of the Family Code obligates spouses to live together, observe mutual love, respect, fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

  • Psychological incapacity for the purposes of declaration of nullity of marriage should not only be based on a medical or psychological disorder but should consist of the inability to comply with essential marital obligations to the extent that public interest is imperiled.

  • Coercive control is a form of psychological abuse characterized by a pattern of behavior meant to dominate and control a partner through various tactics, such as physical and sexual violence, threats, emotional insults, and economic deprivation.

  • The Molina guidelines in determining psychological incapacity as a ground for the nullity of marriage have been criticized for being too stringent and for undermining the institution of marriage.

  • The family unit is a fundamental social institution that laws are meant to protect. The strict application of guidelines that hinder the nullity of marriages in cases of psychological incapacity can lead to the perversion of the family unit.