SILVINO A. LIGERALDE vs. MAY ASCENSION A. PATALINGHUG, ET. AL. G.R. NO.

168796, April 15, 2010 Private acts of living an adulterous life does not rise to the level of the psychological incapacity that the lawrequires . There must be a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completelyunable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not just character flaws that warrant a conclusion of psychological malady.

STATEMENT OF FACTS This petition seeks to set aside the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) which reversed theDecision of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City (RTC) declaring the marriage between petitioner Silvino A. Ligeralde (Silvino) and private respondent May Ascension A.Patalinghug (May) null and void. The couple wed on October 3, 1984, and begot four children. Silvino, who described May asimmature, irresponsible and carefree, claimed that even before marriage he already noticed somesigns of negative marital behavior. During their marriage, he caught her in moments of infidelity,as she would cover up her trysts with her Palestinian boyfriend by saying that she watched avideo program in a neighboring town. They would also have alterations despite his pleas of her changing her ways. Despite May's attempt of reformation for the sake of their marriage andchildren, she still bounced back to her old ways of infidelity, negligence and nocturnal activities, thus leading Silvino to filing a complaint of psychological incapacity on the part of his wife. ISSUE Whether May is psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential obligations of marriage.

RULING No, the Courts considered view that petitioners evidence failed to establish respondent Mays psychological incapacity characterized by gravity, juridical antecedence and incurability. The facts of petitioner were not sufficient to prove the root cause, gravity and incurability of private respondents condition. Even with the testimony of the psychologist, Dr. Nicdao-Basilio, the root cause of psychological incapacity was not identified, as the illness should be fullyexplained in the totality of evidence of the incapacitating nature. In addition, the private acts of living an adulterous life does not rise to the l evel of the psychological incapacity that the lawrequires. There must be a manifestation of a disordered personality, which makes her completelyunable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state, not just character flaws thatwarrant a conclusion of psychological malady. Petition is denied.