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