Marcos v. Marcos, 343 SCRA 755, October 19, 2000

FACTS: Brenda and Wilson first met sometime in 1980 when both of them were assigned at the Malacañang Palace, she as an escort of Imee Marcos and he as a Presidential Guard of President Ferdinand Marcos. They later on became sweethearts and got married and had 5 children. After the EDSA revolution, both of them sought a discharge from the military service. He engaged to different business ventures but failed. She always urged him to look for work so that their children would see him, instead of her, as the head of the family and a good provider. Due to his failure to engage in any gainful employment, they would often quarrel and as a consequence, he would hit and beat her. He would even force her to have sex with him despite her weariness. He would also inflict physical harm on their children for a slight mistake and was so severe in the way he chastised them. Thus, for several times during their cohabitation, he would leave their house. In 1992, they were already living separately. She did not want him to stay in their house anymore so when she saw him in their house, she was so angry that she lambasted him. He then turned violent, inflicting physical harm on her and even on her mother who came to her aid. She sought for nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. The Brenda submitted herself to psychologist Natividad A. Dayan, Ph.D., for psychological evaluation. The court a quo found Wilson to be psychologically incapacitated to perform his marital obligations mainly because of his failure to find work to support his family and his violent attitude towards Brenda and their children. RTC granted the petition. CA reversed. Hence, this case.

ISSUE: W/N there is a need for personal medical examination of respondent to prove psychological incapacity? Whether the totality of evidence presented in this case show psychological incapacity

HELD: Personal medical or psychological examination of respondent is not a requirement for a declaration of psychological incapacity. Nevertheless, the totality of the evidence she presented does not show such incapacity. Although SC is convinced that respondent failed to provide material support to the family and may have resorted to physical abuse and abandonment, the totality of these acts does not lead to a conclusion of psychological incapacity on his part. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage or that they are incurable.