Hernadez Vs. Ca.docx

LUCITA HERNANDEZ vs. CA G.R. No. 126010 Dec. 8,1999

FACTS: Lucita Hernandez and Mario Hernandez were married at Silang Cavite on January 1, 1981. Three children were born to them. On Jan, 1992, Lucita filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to Mario on the ground of psychological incapacity of Mario. She alleged that from the time of their marriage up to the time of the filing of the suit, Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family and contribute to the management of the household, devoting most of his time engaging in drinking sprees with his friends. She further claimed that Mario cohabited with another woman and had an illegitimate child and endangered her health by infecting her with STD. She averred that Mario is irresponsible, immature, and unprepared for the duties of married life. ISSUE: Whether the marriage of Mario and Lucita should be annulled on the ground of Mario’s psychological incapacity. RULING: No. 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. In the instant case, other than her self-serving declarations, petitioner failed to establish the fact that at the time they were married, private respondent was suffering from a psychological defect which in fact deprived him of the ability to assume the essential duties of marriage and its concomitant responsibilities. Private respondent's alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for finding that he is suffering from psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must be shown that these acts are manifestations of a disordered personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.