ARABELLE J. MENDOZA vs.

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

GR No. 157649 November 12, 2012

FACTS:

ARABELLE and DOMINIC met in 1989 and after a month of courtship, they became
intimate and their intimacy led to her pregnancy. They got married on June 24, 1991, after
which they moved to her place.

ARABELLE, being the one with fixed income, shouldered all of the familys expenses
including their childs schooling. Ironically, when DOMINIC got his first sales commission
at Toyota Motors as a car salesman, he spent it on a celebratory bash with his friends.
In 1994, she discovered his illicit relationship with his co-employee, Zaida and eventually
they started to sleep in different rooms, thereby affecting their sexual relationship.
In 1995, DOMINIC gave her a car as a birthday present, which however turned out to be
unpaid and the checks which she issued to pay for the car insurance was used by DOMINIC
for his personal needs.

DOMINIC was eventually fired and was criminally charged with the violation of B.P.
22 and estafa.

On October 25, 1997, DOMINIC abandoned the conjugal abode to heed to the request
of ARABELLE and the reconciliation attempt made by DOMINIC likewise failed.
Consequently, ARABELLE filed for declaration of the nullity of her marriage with
DOMINIC based on his psychological incapacity.

ISSUE:

Is the marriage null and void on the basis of Psychological Incapacity under Art. 36
of the Family Code?

HELD:

No. The Court held that to qualify as a psychological incapacity as a ground for
nullification of marriage, a persons psychological affliction must be grave and serious as to
indicate an utter incapacity to comprehend and comply with the essential objects of
marriage, including the rights and obligations between husband and wife. The affliction
must be shown to exist, at the time of marriage, and must be incurable.

Emotional immaturity and irresponsibility did not equate with psychological

incapacity nor were his supposed sexual infidelity and criminal offenses manifestations of
psychological incapacity. If at all, they would constitute a ground only for an action for legal
separation under Article 55 of the Family Code.