Hernandez v. Court of Appeals, 320 SCRA 76, Dec.08, 1999

FACTS: Lucita and Marcio met in Philippine Christian University in Dasmarinas when lucita was Marcio’s teacher for two consecutive semesters. Lucita was 5 years older than Marcio. They later on became sweethearts and eventually got married. They also had a child. Lucita supported the family as her husband continued studying, supported by his parents. The first few years of their marriage went okay. But this eventually changed. Marcio had an extra-marital relation with another student who was also married. When Lucita discovered this, he asked Lucio to end it. He promised to but did not fulfill it and left their conjugal home and child. After some time, he returned to Lucita and she accepted him. However, his attitude worsened when he got employed to Reynold Philippines, Inc. He engaged in extreme promiscuous conduct during the latter part of 1986.  As a result, private respondent contracted gonorrhea and infected petitioner. Petitioner averred that on one occasion of a heated argument, private respondent hit their eldest child who was then barely a year old.  Private respondent is not close to any of their children as he was never affectionate and hardly spent time with them. On July 10, 1992, petitioner filed before the RTC a petition seeking the annulment of her marriage to private respondent on the ground of psychological incapacity. RTC and CA denied the petition. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: W/N Marcio is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations

HELD: The psychological incapacity of a spouse, as a ground for declaration of nullity of marriage, must exist at the time of the celebration of marriage.  More so, chronic sexual infidelity, abandonment, gambling and use of prohibited drugs are not grounds per se, of psychological incapacity of a spouse. Certainly, petitioner-appellant’s declaration that at the time of their marriage her respondent-husband’s character was on the “borderline between a responsible person and the happy-go-lucky,” could not constitute the psychological incapacity in contemplation of Article 36 of the Family Code.