CASE 2010-0001: MA. SOCORRO CAMACHO-REYES VS.  RAMON REYES (G.R. NO. 185286, 18 AUG 2010, NACHURA J.) SUBJECT/S: PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY; DECLARATION OF NULLITY OF MARRIAGE (BRIEF TITLE: REYES VS. REYES)

 

DISPOSITIVE:

 

        “WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in CA -G.R. CV No. 89761 is REVERSED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, Quezon City in Civil Case No. Q-01-44854 declaring the marriage between petitioner and respondent NULL and VOID under Article 36 of the Family Code is REINSTATED. No costs.

 

SO ORDERED.”

 

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

 

CONCLUSION ON PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY MAY BE REACHED WITHOUT INTERVIEWING THE PARTY WHO IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED.

 

CA REJECTED THE TESTIMONIES OF DOCTORS MAGNO AND VILLEGAS FOR BEING HEARSAY SINCE THEY NEVER PERSONALLY EXAMINED AND INTERVIEWED THE RESPONDENT. WAS CA CORRECT?

 

 

THE TOTALITY OF THE BEHAVIOUR OF RESPONDENT WAS PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED BY PETITIONER. SHE HAD OCCASION TO INTERACT WITH, AND EXPERIENCE, RESPONDENT’S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR WHICH SHE COULD THEN VALIDLY RELAY TO THE CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS AND THE PSYCHIATRIST. SECONDLY THE FINDINGS OF THE DOCTORS WERE NOT BASED SOLELY ON THE INTERVIEW WITH PETITIONER BUT ALSO ON THE INTERVIEW WITH OTHER INFORMANTS.

 “The lack of personal examination and interview of the respondent, or any other person diagnosed with personality disorder, does not per se invalidate the testimonies of the doctors. Neither do their findings automatically constitute hearsay that would result in their exclusion as evidence.

 

For one, marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other. In this case, the experts testified on their individual assessment of the present state of the parties marriage from the perception of one of the parties, herein petitioner. Certainly, petitioner, during their marriage, had occasion to interact with, and experience, respondents pattern of behavior which she could then validly relay to the clinical psychologists and the psychiatrist.

 

For another, the clinical psychologists and psychiatrists assessment were not based solely on the narration or personal interview of the petitioner. Other informants such as respondents own son, siblings and in-laws, and sister-in-law (sister of petitioner), testified on their own observations of respondents behaviour and interactions with them, spanning the period of time they knew him. These were also used as the basis of the doctors assessments.”

 

WHAT ARE THE GENERAL DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIAL FOR PERSONALITY DISORDERS? 

 

“The recent case of Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim,[1][18] citing The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV),[2][19] instructs us on the general diagnostic criteria for personality disorders:

 

  1. An enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture. This pattern is manifested in two (2) or more of the following areas:

(1) cognition (i.e., ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events)

(2) affectivity (i.e., the range, intensity, liability, and appropriateness of emotional response)


(3) interpersonal functioning

        (4) impulse control

 

  1. The enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations.
  2. The enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational or other important areas of functioning.
  3. The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.
  4. The enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or a consequence of another mental disorder.
  5. The enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (i.e., a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., head trauma).

 

Specifically, the DSM IV outlines the diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder:

 

  1. There is a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15 years, as indicated by three (or more) of the following:

 

(1) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest

(2)    deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure

(3)    impulsivity or failure to plan ahead

(4)    irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults

(5)    reckless disregard for safety of self or others

(6)    consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain consistent work behavior or honor financial obligations

(7) lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

 

  1. The individual is at least 18 years.

 

  1. There is evidence of conduct disorder with onset before age 15 years.


 

  1. The occurrence of antisocial behavior is not exclusively during the course of schizophrenia or a manic episode.[3][20]”

 

CAN DENIAL BY RESPONDENT THAT HE IS PSYCHOLOGICALLY INCAPACITATED CONTRAVENE DOCTOR’S FINDINGS?

 

  1. A PERSON AFFLCITED WITH A PERSONALITY DISORDER WILL NOT NECESSARILY HAVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE THEREOF.

 

“Within their acknowledged field of expertise, doctors can diagnose the psychological make up of a person based on a number of factors culled from various sources. A person afflicted with a personality disorder will not necessarily have personal knowledge thereof. In this case, considering that a personality disorder is manifested in a pattern of behavior, self-diagnosis by the respondent consisting only in his bare denial of the doctors separate diagnoses, does not necessarily evoke credence and cannot trump the clinical findings of experts.”

 

THE CA SAYS THAT THE PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY OF RESPONDENT IS NOT INCURABLE BECAUSE THE DOCTOR RECOMMENDED THERAPY. IS CA CORRECT?

 

NO.

 

THERAPY IS USUALLY RECOMMENDED ONLY TO MANAGE BEHAVIOUR.

 

“The CA declared that, based on Dr. Dayans findings and recommendation, the psychological incapacity of respondent is not incurable.

 

The appellate court is mistaken.

 

A recommendation for therapy does not automatically imply curability. In general, recommendations for therapy are given by clinical psychologists, or even psychiatrists, to manage behavior. In Kaplan and Saddocks textbook entitled Synopsis of Psychiatry,[4][21] treatment, ranging from psychotherapy to pharmacotherapy, for all the listed kinds of personality disorders are recommended. In short, Dr. Dayans recommendation that respondent should undergo therapy does not necessarily negate the finding that respondents psychological incapacity is incurable.”

 

IN THIS CASE WHAT WERE THE MANIFESTATIONS ON RESPONDENT’S PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR WHICH BECAME BASIS FOR THE FINDING ON HIS PSYCHOLOGICAL INCAPACITY?

 

 “In sum, we find points of convergence & consistency in all three reports and the respective testimonies of Doctors Magno, Dayan and Villegas, i.e.: (1) respondent does have problems; and (2) these problems include chronic irresponsibility; inability to recognize and work towards providing the needs of his family; several failed business attempts; substance abuse; and a trail of unpaid money obligations.”

…………………………………….

 

        In the instant case, respondents pattern of behavior manifests an inability, nay, a psychological incapacity to perform the essential marital obligations as shown by his: (1) sporadic financial support; (2) extra-marital affairs; (3) substance abuse; (4) failed business attempts; (5) unpaid money obligations; (6) inability to keep a job that is not connected with the family businesses; and (7) criminal charges of estafa.”

 

WHAT IS THE GENERAL RULE ON DIAGNOSES MADE BY CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGISTS OR PSYCHIATRISTS?

THESE FINDINGS ARE NOT AUTOMATICALLY BELIEVED BY THE COURT.

 

 

 

“It is true that a clinical psychologists or psychiatrists diagnoses that a person has personality disorder is not automatically believed by the courts in cases of declaration of nullity of marriages. Indeed, a clinical psychologists or psychiatrists finding of a personality disorder does not exclude a finding that a marriage is valid and subsisting, and not beset by one of the parties or both parties psychological incapacity.

 

On more than one occasion, we have rejected an experts opinion concerning the supposed psychological incapacity of a party.[5][24] In Lim v. Sta. Cruz-Lim,[6][25] we ruled that, even without delving into the non-exclusive list found in Republic v. Court of Appeals & Molina,[7][26] the stringent requisites provided in Santos v. Court of Appeals[8][27] must be independently met by the party alleging the nullity of the marriage grounded on Article 36 of the Family Code. We declared, thus:

 

It was folly for the trial court to accept the findings and conclusions of Dr. Villegas with nary a link drawn between the “psychodynamics of the case” and the factors characterizing the psychological incapacity. Dr. Villegas’ sparse testimony does not lead to the inevitable conclusion that the parties were psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations. Even on questioning from the trial court, Dr. Villegas’ testimony did not illuminate on the parties’ alleged personality disorders and their incapacitating effect on their marriage x x x.

 

Curiously, Dr. Villegas’ global conclusion of both parties’ personality disorders was not supported by psychological tests properly administered by clinical psychologists specifically trained in the tests’ use and interpretation. The supposed personality disorders of the parties, considering that such diagnoses were made, could have been fully established by psychometric and neurological tests which are designed to measure specific aspects of people’s intelligence, thinking, or personality.

 

x x x x

 

The expert opinion of a psychiatrist arrived at after a maximum of seven (7) hours of interview, and unsupported by separate psychological tests, cannot tie the hands of the trial court and prevent it from making its own factual finding on what happened in this case. The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory or opinion, but rather in the assistance that he can render to the courts in showing the facts that serve as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded.”

 

 

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.

 

SC-2010-0001-AUGUST-2010-REYES

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao  and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.

 

[1][18]     G.R. No. 176464, February 4, 2010.

[2][19]     Quick Reference to the Diagnostic Criteria from DSM IV-TR, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.

[3][20]     See Kaplan and Saddock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry and Psychology Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th ed.), p. 785.

[4][21]     See Kaplan and Saddock’s Synopsis of Psychiatry and Psychology Behavioral Sciences/Clinical Psychiatry (8th ed.), 1998.

 

[5][24]     Padilla-Rumabaua v. Rumbaua, G.R. No. 166738, August 14, 2009, 596 SCRA 157; Paz v. Paz, G.R. No. 166579, February 18, 2010.

[6][25]     Supra note 18.

[7][26]     Supra.

[8][27]     Supra note 11.