JOEY DICHOSO
CIVIL CASE NO._________
Petitioner
For:
-VERSUSDeclaration
of
Nullity
of
Marriage
JENNY DICHOSO
Respondent
x----------------------------------x
DECISION
PETITIONERS ALLEGATIONS:
Petitioner alleged that at the time of the celebration of marriage,
Respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity and not truly
cognitive of her marital obligations. The following allegations of the
petitioner as follows:
a) That during their relationship before the marriage, Jenny was a
party girl. After quitting on becoming a police officer, she often
went out with friends to drink until the wee hours of the nights in
various bars in Baguio city. She would often go out together with
her friends to meet new guys;
b) Jenny showed signs of immaturity and irresponsibility as a wife
and a mother .She preferred to spend more time with her peers
on whom she will squander here money;
c) Respondent is also an incorrible liar. She would in many things,
also petitioner alleged that respondent is too dependent on her
father that all her decisions in life should be in conformity with
those of her fathers. Jenny does not have ability to decide on her
own regarding her decisions in life. Apparently her decision to
marry petitioner was also largely because of her father
persuaded her to;
d) Furthermore, although the two have their own house, respondent
would oftentimes leave their house to stay at her parents house
for several days because, according to he, she couldnt sleep
peacefully in their house and that she oftentimes felt suffocated
there. She often left the children in the care of their yayas;
e) Respondent also has plans in going to the USA and leave the
petitioner and the children behind .Petitioner tried everything
possible to persuade the respondent to change for the better
specially her violent personality so that they could build their
family, live together harmoniously as husband and wife.
However, his efforts was all in vain, prompting him to file the
petition.
RESPONDENTS COUNTER-ALLEGATIONS
a) Respondent alleges that there was no forced marriage that
transpired between them, they married because of love and that the
petitioner proposed to her and the event was witnessed by their friends and
petitioners mother;
b) They were a happy family for few years, it was far from perfect
and such is evident by the birth of the three (3) children not until when she
discovered negative things about her husband;
c) She knew before their marriage that joey was hothead but few
months after their marriage his temper became uncontrollable. He was
always angry every time he got home and frequently vent his anger towards
her. He easily got angry over little things to the extent that he will throw and
break their things like vases etc. He also shouts at her profane words which
only a dog could take;
that she was indeed psychologically incapacitated. Indeed, the totality of the
evidence points to the opposite conclusion. A fair assessment of the facts
would show that respondent was not totally remiss and incapable of
appreciating and performing her marital and parental duties.
It was the petitioner suffering from psychological incapacity
Looking into the result of the Psychological Evaluation conducted by Dr.
Eileen Kiwalan that it was the petitioner who is suffering from Psychological
Incapacity it was shown that he was suffering from PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVE
PERSONALITY DISORDER COMORBID ANTI-SOCIAL PERSONALITY
DISORDER characterized by egocentrism, emotional weakness, a person
who enjoys being domineering, sullen and argumentative, have feelings of
superiority and indomitability, who is internally brood hostile and
oppositional feelings which further pave the way to his aggressive
tendencies and impulsive predilection when provoked and which makes him
all the more embittered ,disgruntled and delusional in their relationship.
Also such incapacity could be strengthen by the petitioners own mother who
testified against her son. The mother testified about her sons behavior
whereby her son goes home drunk and shouts at the respondent. Mother
also testified that her son becomes violent to the extent that he would hit
the respondent.
Dr. Kiwalan observed that the psychological incapacity of the petitioner
is GRAVE, PERVASIVE, SERIOUS, SEVERE AND PERMANENT rendering it
totally beyond repair despite available treatments and intervention
considering the severity of petitioners aberrant psychological conditions,
which makes reconciliation between him and his wife very difficult and
impossible.
IN Santos vs CA, the court first declared that psychological incapacity must
be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The
incapacity must be grave or serious such that the party would be incapable of
carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the
history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may
emerge only after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were
otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.