Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R. No. 166357, September 19, 2011

FACTS: Tyrone Kalaw and Malyn Fernandez got married in 1976. After the birth of their 4th child, Tyrone had an affair with Jocelyn Quejano. In May 1985, Malyn left the conjugal home and her four children with Tyrone. Meanwhile, Tyrone started living with Jocelyn, and they had three more children. In 1990, Tyrone went to the United States (US) with Jocelyn and their children. On July 6, 1994, nine years since the de facto separation from his wife, Tyrone filed a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage based on Article 36 of the Family Code. He alleged that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform and comply with the essential marital obligations at the time of the celebration of their marriage. He alleged that 1) She leaves the children without proper care and attention as she played mahjong all day and all night; 2) She leaves the house to party with male friends and returned in the early hours of the following day; and 3) She committed adultery on June 9, 1985 in Hyatt Hotel with one Benjie whom he saw half-naked in the hotel room. Tyrone presented a psychologist, Dr. Cristina Gates (Dr. Gates), and a Catholic canon law expert, Fr. Gerard Healy, S.J. (Fr. Healy), to testify on Malyn’s psychological incapacity. Dr. Gates explained that Malyn suffers from Narcissistic Personalityu Disorder and that it “may have been evident even prior to her marriage” because it is rooted in her family background and upbringing. Fr. Healy concluded that Malyn was psychologically incapacitated to perform her marital duties. He explained that her psychological incapacity is rooted in her role as the breadwinner of her family. This role allegedly inflated Malyn’s ego to the point that her needs became priority, while her kids’ and husband’s needs became secondary.

ISSUE: Whether Tyrone has sufficiently proven that Malynsuffers from psychological incapacity

HELD: No. He presented the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses who concluded that respondent is psychologically incapacitated, but the conclusions of these witnesses were premised on the alleged acts or behavior of respondent which had not been sufficiently proven. No proof whatsoever was presented to prove her visits to beauty salons or her frequent partying with friends.  Malyn’s sexual infidelity was also not proven because she was only dating other men.  Even assuming that she had an extramarital affair with another man, sexual infidelity cannot be equated with obsessive need for attention from other men.  Sexual infidelity per se is a ground for legal separation, but it does not necessarily constitute psychological incapacity.