MA. ARMIDA PEREZ-FERRARIS,Petitioner
BRIX FERRARIS, Respondent
The couple Armida and Brix were married for about a year or so was not all bad. During that relatively short period of time, Armida was happy and contented with her life in the company of Brix. Armida even admitted to the court that respondent was a responsible and loving husband.
When Armida started doubting Brix’ fidelity, problems in their marriage begun. Brix began to withdraw into his shell and corner and failed to perform his so-called marital obligations when they started fighting about the calls from women.
Brix could not understand Armida’s lack of trust in him and her constant naggings. He thought her suspicions irrational. Brix could not relate to her anger, temper and jealousy.
Armida presented a psychological expert (Dr. Dayan) who gave his findings that Brix is a schizoid and a dependent and avoidant type. This is evident of his
“leaving-the-house” attitude whenever they quarreled, the violent tendencies during epileptic attacks, the sexual infidelity, the abandonment and lack of support, and his preference to spend more time with his band mates than his family.
Issue: whether or not psychological incapacity exist in this given case.
According to the supreme court
“Simply put, the chief and basic consideration in the resolution of marital annulment cases is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish respondent’s psychological condition. Here, appellant contends that there is such evidence. We do not agree. Indeed, the evidence on record did not convincingly establish that respondent was suffering from psychological incapacity. There is absolutely no showing that his “defects” were already present at the inception of the marriage, or that those are incurable.
the Court held that the psychological defects spoken of were more of a “difficulty,” if not outright “refusal” or “neglect” in the performance of some marital obligations and that a mere showing of irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no wise constitute psychological incapacity; it is not enough to prove that the parties failed to meet their responsibilities and duties as married persons; it is essential that they must be shown to be incapable of doing so, due to some psychological, not physical, illness.
Also in Hernandez v Court of Appeals it states that habitual alcoholism, sexual infidelity or perversion, and abandonment do not by themselves constitute grounds for declaring a marriage void based on psychological incapacity.