-
7/28/2019 Aspillaga v Aspillaga
1/5
Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. 170925 October 26, 2009
RODOLFO A. ASPILLAGA, Petitioner,vs.AURORA A. ASPILLAGA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
QUISUMBING, J .:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the
Decision1dated September 9, 2005 and theResolution2dated December
20, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 68179,
entitled
"Rodolfo A. Aspillaga v. Aurora A. Aspillaga."
The facts culled from the records are as follows:
Rodolfo Aspillaga met Aurora Apon sometime in 1977 while they
were students at the PhilippineMerchant Marine Academy and Lyceum
of the Philippines, respectively. Rodolfo courted her and
fivemonths later, they became sweethearts. Thereafter, Aurora left
for Japan to study Japanese culture,literature and language.
Despite the distance, Rodolfo and Aurora maintained
communication.
In 1980, after Aurora returned to the Philippines, she and
Rodolfo got married. They begot twochildren, but Rodolfo claimed
their marriage was "tumultuous." He described Aurora as
domineeringand frequently humiliated him even in front of his
friends. He complained that Aurora was a
spendthrift as she overspent the family budget and made crucial
family decisions without consultinghim. Rodolfo added that Aurora
was tactless, suspicious, given to nagging and jealousy asevidenced
by the latters filing against him a criminal case (concubinage) and
an administrative case.He left the conjugal home, and filed on
March 7, 1995, a petition for annulment of marriage on theground of
psychological incapacity on the part of Aurora. He averred that
Aurora failed to complywith the essential obligations of
marriage.
Aurora, for her part, alleged that sometime in 1991, Rodolfo
gave her a plane ticket to Japan toenable her to assume her
teaching position in a university for a period of three months. In
August1991, upon her return to Manila, she discovered that while
she was in Japan, Rodolfo brought intotheir conjugal home her
cousin, Lecita Rose A. Besina, as his concubine. Aurora alleged
thatRodolfos cohabitation with her cousin led to the disintegration
of their marriage and their eventualseparation. In May 1992,
Rodolfo abandoned their conjugal home to live with Besina.
Auroraclaimed custody of the children.
During trial, expert witness Dr. Eduardo Maaba explained his
psychiatric evaluation of the parties aswell as his recommendation
that the petition be granted. In this report, he stated,
"x x x x
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt1
-
7/28/2019 Aspillaga v Aspillaga
2/5
Psychiatric evaluation of petitioner, Rodolfo Aspillaga, showed
that he is an intelligent adult male,who is egoistic and harbors an
inner sense of inadequacy, helplessness and anxiety in losing
agility.He, however, projects himself as dominant person, to cover
his deep-seated insecurity andinadequacy. He tends to be suspicious
and blames others for his mistakes. He claims for
adulation,reassurance and attention from other people. These can be
traced from an unhealthy familialrelationship during the early
maturational development specifically in the form of a domineering
and
protective maternal image.
Self-esteem was fragile.
Psychiatric evaluation of respondent, Aurora Apon Aspillaga,
showed history of traumatic childhoodexperiences. Her parents
separated when she was about one month old and was made to
believethat she was the youngest daughter of her disciplinarian
grandfather. Her surrogate sister maltreatedher and imposed harsh
corporal punishment for her slightest mistakes. She felt devastated
whenshe accidentally discovered that shed been an orphan adopted by
her grandfather. Attemptedincestuous desire by an uncle was
reported.
Psychological test results collaborated the clinical findings of
sensitivity to criticism. Tendency for
self dramatization and attention getting behavior. Lapses in
judgment and shallow heterosexualrelationship was projected. Sign
of immaturity and desire to regress to a lower level of
developmentwere likewise projected. Self-esteem was also low.
Deep-seated sense of dejection, loneliness andemptiness hamper her
objectivity.
In summary, both petitioner and respondent harbor psychological
handicaps which could be tracedfrom unhealthy maturational
development. Both had strict, domineering, disciplinarian role
models.However, respondents mistrust, shallow heterosexual
relationships resulted in incapacitation in herability to comply
with the obligation of marriage.
It is recommended that the petition to annul their marriage be
granted, on the grounds existingpsychological incapacitation of
both petitioner and respondent, which will hamper their capacity
tocomply with their marital obligations. Dissolution of the marital
bond will offer both of them, peace of
mind."3
On May 31, 2000,4the Regional Trial Court (RTC) found the
parties psychologically incapacitated toenter into marriage.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September
9, 2005, reversed and set asidethe RTC decision and declared the
marriage of Rodolfo and Aurora Aspillaga valid. Petitioner filed
amotion for reconsideration, but the motion was also denied in a
Resolution dated December 20,2005.
Hence, this petition raising the sole issue:
[WHETHER THE APPELLATE COURT] CORRECTLY APPLIED THE DEFINITION
OF"PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY" TO THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF THE
PARTIESDURING THE CELEBRATION OF THEIR MARRIAGE.5
Simply stated, the issue before us is whether the marriage is
void on the ground of the partiespsychological incapacity.
The petition must fail.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt3
-
7/28/2019 Aspillaga v Aspillaga
3/5
-
7/28/2019 Aspillaga v Aspillaga
4/5
regarding money matters is a common, and even normal, occurrence
between husbands andwives.12
At this juncture while this Court is convinced that indeed both
parties were both found to havepsychological disorders,
nevertheless, there is nothing in the records showing that these
disordersare sufficient to declare the marriage void due to
psychological incapacity. We must emphasize that
said disorders do not manifest that both parties are truly
incapacitated to perform the basic maritalcovenants. Moreover,
there is nothing that shows incurability of these disorders. Even
assumingtheir acts violate the covenants of marriage, such acts do
not show an irreparably hopeless state ofpsychological incapacity
which will prevent them from undertaking the basic obligations of
marriagein the future. At the most, the psychiatric evaluation of
the parties proved only incompatibility andirreconcilable
differences, which cannot be equated with psychological incapacity
as understood
juristically.
As this Court has repeatedly declared, Article 36 of the Family
Code is not to be confused with adivorce law that cuts the marital
bond at the time the causes thereof manifest themselves. Article
36refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even
before the celebration of the marriage.The malady must be so grave
and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties
andresponsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to
assume.131avvph!1
As regards respondents claim for support, we find no basis to
award the same as it was not passedupon by the trial court in view
of the agreement of the parties on the issue presented for
resolution,which agreement, however, was not put into writing.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED for lack of merit. The
assailed Decision datedSeptember 9, 2005 and Resolution dated
December 20, 2005 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R.CV No. 68179
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO*Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALESAssociate Justice
ARTURO D. BRIONAssociate Justice
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate Justice
A T T E S T A T I O N
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been
reached in consultation before the casewas assigned to the writer
of the opinion of the Courts Division.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#fnt12
-
7/28/2019 Aspillaga v Aspillaga
5/5
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBINGAssociate JusticeChairperson
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the
Division Chairpersons Attestation, Icertify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
casewas assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Courts
Division.
REYNATO S. PUNOChief Justice
Footnotes
* Additional member per Special Order No. 757.
1Rollo, pp. 17-25. Penned by Associate Justice Estela M.
Perlas-Bernabe, withAssociate Justices Elvi John S. Asuncion and
Lucas P. Bersamin (now a member ofthis Court) concurring.
2Id. at 27.
3Id. at 19-20.
4Id. at 6-7.
5Id. at 7.
6G.R. No. 112019, January 4, 1995, 240 SCRA 20.
7Id. at 33-34. Bier v. Bier, G.R. No. 173294, February 27, 2008,
547 SCRA 123, 130.
8Antonio v. Reyes, G.R. No. 155800, March 10, 2006, 484 SCRA
353, 376, citingRepublic v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 108763,
February 13, 1997, 268 SCRA 198,209.
9Republic v. Court of Appeals, supra at 207.
10Tongol v. Tongol, G.R. No. 157610, October 19, 2007, 537 SCRA
135, 142.
11Id. at 151.
12Id.
13Paras v. Paras, G.R. No. 147824, August 2, 2007, 529 SCRA 81,
106-107.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt13http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt12http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt11http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt10http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt9http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt8http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt7http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt6http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt5http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_170925_2009.html#rnt1
![K À À ] Á } ( ] v ] ] ] À ( } v Z v ] v P } } ] v ] } v v ...€¦ · / v } µ ] } v & } ] v P Ç v P ] v v Z v ] v P } o o } ] } v v } } ] v ] } v } ] } ] À ] Ç r o } v À](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f71be7f1345627ffc7c2e81/k-v-v-z-v-v-p-v-v-v-v-v.jpg)
![y ö À ] b ;wí± C 2...ß V ¹ ü¢ S j V V 5&- V V '"9 V V ß V Ê¢¢v l V V 5 & - V V ' " 9 V V z æ 3 Vvy a¢ È f ¥ + ß V 5 & - V V ' " 9 V V vy 3 V ß - Ä¢ l V V V ¢Í](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5f04add97e708231d40f2a90/y-b-w-c-2-v-s-j-v-v-5-v-v-9-v-v-v-v.jpg)
![INM DSLD Dectron Rev.1 · 2018. 7. 26. · W ] ] v P } v v ] } v t ' v o } v ] ] } v ' r í } v v ] v } v v ] } v v W r / v o o ] } v ' r í W } } o t , ] v P } v v ] } v ' r î K](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/61220a9102fa1b2c0a59ed6c/inm-dsld-dectron-rev1-2018-7-26-w-v-p-v-v-v-t-v-o-v-v.jpg)
![^ v K } v v ] Ç } v · ^ v K } v v ] Ç } v } v } ^ µ i D u } µ v } ( } v ] ] } v](https://img.pdfslide.us/doc/110x75/5ecf70935fe58a54221b1332/-v-k-v-v-v-v-k-v-v-v-v-i-d-u-v-v-.jpg)
