Bier V. Bier 5a1m2d

Bier Petitioners: Renee Respondents: Ma. Lourdes Bier

v. Enrique

Bier Bier



Recit Ready: Renee and Lourdes got married. The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. She started becoming aloof towards and suddenly left for the United States. Renee has not heard from her since. Renee petitioned for the nullity of their marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity. TC granted. OSG alleged that petitioner failed to comply with Molina case. Held: In this case the, TC in granting the nullity of marriage, overlooked the need to show the gravity, root cause and incurability of respondent's psychological incapacity and that it was already present at the inception of the marriage. Hence patently erroneous. If a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved. Also, even if The Molina Case was never meant to be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases involving Article 36 of the Family Code, the abovementioned requirements cannot be dispensed with. Furthermore the petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proving the nullity of his marriage.

Facts: 



Petitioner Renne Enrique E. Bier met respondent Ma. Lourdes A. Bier through his sister. Their courtship lasted six months. Back then, petitioner observed respondent to be a very sweet and thoughtful person. They then got married Everything went well for the first three years of their marriage. Respondent was everything petitioner could hope for in a wife sweet, loving and caring. She also took good care of the house. As petitioner was based in Saudi Arabia as an electronics technician at Saudia Airlines, the parties decided to maintain two residences, one in the Philippines and another in Saudi Arabia. They took turns shuttling between the two countries just so they could spend time together.

 

 



The couple started experiencing marital problems after three years of marriage. According to petitioner, respondent ceased to be the person he knew and married. She started becoming aloof towards him and began to spend more time with her friends than with him, refusing even to have sexual relations with him for no apparent reason. She became an alcoholic and a chain-smoker. She also started neglecting her husband's needs and the upkeep of their home, and became an absentee wife. After being gone from their home for days on end, she would return without bothering to for her absence. As a result, they frequently quarreled. Respondent suddenly left for the United States. Petitioner has not heard from her since. Petitioner instituted in RTC of QC, a petition for the declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground that respondent was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations to petitioner. The OSG argued that no persuasive evidence was presented warranting the grant of the petition, especially since petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Republic v. CA and Molina. RTC ruled in favor of petitioner.CA held that petitioner failed to comply with the guidelines laid down in Molina as the root cause of respondent's psychological incapacity was not medically or clinically identified. Worse, the same was not even alleged in the petition filed in the court a quo. Petitioner contends that the guidelines enunciated in Molina, specifically its directive that the root cause of the psychological incapacity must be identified as a psychological illness and its incapacitating nature fully explained, and that it must be proven to be existing at the inception of the marriage, need not be strictly complied with as Molina itself stated the guidelines were merely handed down for the guidance of the bench and bar and were not meant to be a checklist of requirements in deciding cases involving psychological incapacity.

Issue: 1. Whether the findings of the RTC is binding. 2. Whether the petition for nullity must be given due course. 3. Whether Renee successfully discharged the burden of proving the nullity of his marriage. Held: 1. No.  Finding of the trial court on the existence or non-existence of psychological incapacity is final and binding on us absent any

showing that its factual findings and evaluation of the evidence were clearly and manifestly erroneous. However, the court a quo clearly erred in granting the petition. 2. No  The trial court apparently overlooked the fact that SC has been consistent in holding that if a petition for nullity based on psychological incapacity is to be given due course, its gravity, root cause, incurability and the fact that it existed prior to or at the time of celebration of the marriage must always be proved (Santos v. CA).  Nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity must be confined only to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage. This is specially so since the Family Code does not define psychological incapacity. The determination thereof is left solely to the discretion of the courts and must be made on a case-to-case basis.  Also, even if Molina was never meant to be a checklist of the requirements in deciding cases involving Article 36, the gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability and its existence at the inception of the marriage cannot be dispensed with.  The [Molina] guidelines incorporate the three basic requirements earlier mandated by the Court in Santos v. Court of Appeals: psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability. The foregoing guidelines do not require that a physician examine the person to be declared psychologically incapacitated. In fact, the root cause may be medically or clinically identified. What is important is

the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. 3. No.  Petitioner also failed to discharge the burden of proving the nullity of his marriage. The evidence for petitioner consisted of his own testimony and that of his brother, Roderico Bier. He also presented as evidence a psychological report written by Dr. Nedy Tayag, a clinical psychologist, who also testified on the matters contained therein.  Dr. Tayag's report, which found respondent to be suffering from psychological incapacity, particularly a narcissistic personality disorder, relied only on the information fed by petitioner. Furthermore, as already stated, the report also failed to identify the root cause of respondent's narcissistic personality disorder and to prove that it existed at the inception of the marriage.  Although there is no requirement that a party to be declared psychologically incapacitated should be personally examined by a physician or a psychologist (as a condition sine qua non), there is nevertheless still a need to prove the psychological incapacity through independent evidence adduced by the person alleging said disorder.  Habitual alcoholism, chain-smoking, failure or refusal to meet one's duties and responsibilities as a married person and eventual abandonment of a spouse do not suffice to nullify a marriage on the basis of psychological incapacity, if not shown to be due to some psychological (as opposed to physical) illness.