Mendoza v. Republic, G.R. No. 157854, November 12, 2012

Facts: Arabelle and Dominic Mendoza got married while Arabelle was eight months pregnant. They lived together but depended on their parents for financial support. Arabelle had different jobs to support the needs of the family. When Dominic got employed for Toyota in Bel-Air Makati in 1994, he spent his first salary celebrating with his friends. September of the same year, Arabelle found out of Dominic’s illicit relationship with Zaida, his co-employee. Communication between them became rare and they started sleeping in separate rooms. In November 1995, Dominic gave her a car as a birthday present only to find out that he did not pay for it, forcing her to rely on her father-in-law for the payment of the car. Dominic eventually got fired from his job because of he ran away with P164,000 belonging to his employer. He was charged with estafa. Petitioner also found out that he swindled many of his clients some of them threatening her and their family. On October 15, 1997, Dominic abandoned the conjugal abode because petitioner asked him for “time and space to think things over.” A month later, she refused his attempt at reconciliation, causing him to threaten to commit suicide. She and her family immediately left the house to live in another place concealed from him. On August 5, 1998, petitioner filed in the RTC her petition for the declaration of the nullity of her marriage with Dominic based on his psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code. The RTC found that all the characteristics of psychological incapacity which are gravity, antecedence and incurability, were attendant, establishing Dominic’s psychological incapacity. The Republic appealed to the CA, arguing that there was no showing that Dominic’s personality traits either constituted psychological incapacity existing at the time of the marriage or were of the nature contemplated by Article 36 of the Family Code; that the testimony of the expert witness was not conclusive upon the court, and that the real reason for the parties’ separation had been their frequent quarrels over financial matters and the criminal cases brought against Dominic. CA reversed the decision of RTC. Hence, this petition.

ISSUE: W/N psychological incapacity of Dominic was established

HELD: No. Findings of Dr. Samson were one-sided, because Dominic was not himself subjected to an actual psychiatric evaluation by petitioner’s expert. He also did not participate in the proceedings. And that the findings and conclusions on his psychological profile by her expert were solely based the testimonies of the petitioner.