320 SCRA 76, December 08, 1999, J. Mendoza

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Lucita Estrella married Mario Hernandez on January 1, 1981 adn they begot three (3) children. On July 10, 1992, Lucita filed before the RTC of Tagaytay City, a petition for annulment of marriage under Article 36 alleging that from the time of their marriage, Mario failed to perform his obligation to support the family, devoting most of this time drinking, had affairs with many women and cohabiting with another women with whom he had an illegitimate child, and finally abandoning her and the family.

The RTC dismissed the petition which was affirmed by the CA.

ISSUE:

Whether there was psychological incapacity under Article. 36

RULING:

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. As the Court of Appeals pointed out, no evidence was presented to show that private respondent was not cognizant of the basic marital obligations. It was not sufficiently proved that  private respondent was really incapable of fulfilling his duties due to some incapacity of a psychological nature, and not merely physical.

Private respondent’s alleged habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute ground for finding that he is suffering from a psychological incapacity within the contemplation of the Family Code. It must e shown that these facts are manifestations of a discolored personality which make private respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, and not merely due to private respondent’s youth and self-conscious feeling of being handsome, as the appellate court held.

Judgment AFFIRMED.