MARIA TERESA B. TANI-DE LA FUENTE vs. RODOLFO DE LA FUENTE, JR. G.R. No. 188400 March 8, 2017

Petitioner Maria Teresa and respondent Rodolfo got married and got two children: Katharyn and Kimberly. Prior to their marriage, petitioner already noticed that respondent was an introvert and was prone to jealousy. She also observed that Rodolfo appeared to have no ambition in life and felt insecure of his siblings, who excelled in their studies and careers. Rodolfo's attitude worsened as they went on with their marital life and even treated Maria Teresa like a sex slave. Petitioner suggested that she and Rodolfo undergo marriage counselling, but Rodolfo refused and deemed it as mere "kalokohan".

 

Sometime in 1986, the couple quarreled because Rodolfo suspected that Maria Teresa was having an affair. In the heat of their quarrel, Rodolfo poked a gun at Maria Teresa's head. Maria Teresa, with their two (2) daughters in tow, left Rodolfo and their conjugal home after the gunpoking incident. Maria Teresa never saw Rodolfo again after that, and she supported their children by herself. Maria Teresa then filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage before the RTC.

 

Dr. Lopez, a clinical psychologist, was presented as an expert witness and diagnosed Rodolfo with "paranoid personality disorder”. He claimed that Rodolfo’s condition was serious and incurable because of his severe paranoia. He then recommended that Maria Teresa and Rodolfo's marriage be annulled due to Rodolfo's incapacity to perform his marital obligations.

 

Q: If you were the judge, will you grant the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage for reason of Rodolfo’s psychological incapacity?

 

A: Yes, if I were the judge, I will grant the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage.

 

The law provides standards for determining psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code wherein "psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability." Furthermore, the incapacity "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.”

In this case, an expert opinion on the psychological and mental disposition of the parties must be given with credence.  Dr. Lopez, in his explanations, had elaborated the presence of elements to prove the psychological incapacity of Rodolfo as to the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability of his paranoid personality disorder. Dr. Lopez explained that respondent's psychological incapacity to perform his marital obligations was likely caused by growing up with a pathogenic parental model.

Respondent's repeated behavior of psychological abuses to his wife are proof of his depravity, and utter lack of comprehension of what marriage and partnership entail. Since the State's interest must be toward the stability of society, the notion of psychological incapacity should not only be based on a medical or psychological disorder, but should consist of the inability to comply with essential marital obligations such that public interest is imperiled. Therefore, marriage between Maria Theresa and Rodolfo must be declared null and void for reason of psychological incapacity of Rodolfo. 

GRACE M. GRANDE vs. PATRICIO T. ANTONIO G.R. No. 206248 February 18, 2014

Petitioner Grace and respondent Patricio lived together as husband and wife, although Antonio was already married to someone else. Out of this illicit relationship, two sons were born: Andre and Jerard. The children were not expressly recognized by respondent as his own in the Record of Births of the children in the Civil Registry. The parties’ relationship, however, eventually turned sour, and Grace left for the United States with her two minor children. This prompted respondent Patricio to file a Petition for Judicial Approval of Recognition with Prayer to take Parental Authority, Parental Physical Custody, Correction/Change of Surname of Minors and for the Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Injunction before the RTC.

          Q1: Who among Grace and Patricio shall have the sole parental authority and                  physical custody over their two minor children? Explain with legal basis.

 

A: Grace shall have the parental authority and physical custody over their two minor children. The law provides under Art. 176 of the Family Code as amended that illegitimate children shall use the surname and shall be under the parental authority of their mother, and shall be entitled to support in conformity with this Code. Since parental authority is given to the mother, then custody over the minor children also goes to the mother, unless she is shown to be unfit. Here, respondent Patricio failed to prove that petitioner Grace committed any act that adversely affected the welfare of the children or rendered her unsuitable. Hence, respondent’s prayer has no legal mooring.

Q2: Does the father, Patricio, have the right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children upon his recognition of their filiation? Explain with legal basis.

 

A: No, the father, Patricio, has no right to compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children upon his recognition of their filiation. The amended Art. 176 of the Family Code provides that illegitimate children may use the surname of their father if their filiation has been expressly recognized by their father through the record of birth appearing in the civil register, or when an admission in a public document or private handwritten instrument is made by the father. However, Art. 176 gives illegitimate children the right to decide if they want to use the surname of their father or not. It is not the father (herein respondent) or the mother (herein petitioner) who is granted by law the right to dictate the surname of their illegitimate children. The use of the word "may" in the provision readily shows that an acknowledged illegitimate child is under no compulsion to use the surname of his illegitimate father. The word "may" is permissive and operates to confer discretion upon the illegitimate children. Therefore, Patricio cannot compel the use of his surname by his illegitimate children upon recognition of their filiation.