AEK filed before a trial court a petition for the declaration of nullity of her marriage. She asked that it be declared null on account solely of her husband's psychological incapacity. During the trial, she and her sister testified. She, likewise, engaged the services of a psychologist who testified that both husband and petitioner AEK were psychologically incapacitated. The husband did not present any evidence. After the trial, the court granted the petition. It declared the marriage of AEK to her husband null and void from the very beginning on account of the psychological incapacity of both parties.
The State, through the Office of the Solicitor-General, was not in conformity with the court's decision. It asked the court to give its decision a second look. But the latter stood pat on its decision.
On an appeal initiated by the Office of the Solicitor General, the Court of Appeals took the side of the appellant. It reversed the lower court. In answer to one of the issues the OSG raised, the Court of Appeals said that the trial court cannot grant a relief that was not prayed for by AEK. This specifically pertains to the fact that the trial court pronounced the marriage void on account of the psychological incapacity of both spouses when AEK only asked that it be based on her husband's incapacity.
This became a contested issue when it reached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court laid this issue to rest once and for all. "The RTC is precluded from granting a relief not prayed for in the pleadings or in excess of what is being sought by Aida. 'Due process considerations justify this requirement.' It is not proper to enter an order that exceeds the extent of the relief sought by the pleadings where the opposing party is not given an opportunity to be heard with respect to the proposed relief."
"Aida contends before the RTC that she prayed for other just and equitable remedies aside from her main prayer to have her marriage to Ireneo declared void due to the latter's psychological incapacity. Hence, even if she did not specifically pray that she be, likewise, declared psychologically incapacitated to assume her essential marital obligations, she maintains that the RTC decision declaring the psychological incapacity of both parties should be upheld."
"The Court is not persuaded. Admittedly, where there's a general prayer for 'other reliefs just and equitable' appearing on the complaint, the Court may award reliefs not specifically prayed for as long as these are supported by the compliant and other pleadings, by the facts admitted at the trial, and by the evidence adduced by the parties. Even so, the Court held that the foregoing rule should not be made to apply in cases for declaration of nullity of marriage under Art. 36 of the Family Code, where psychological incapacity should be proven by clear and convincing evidence. It bears emphasizing that the 'burden of proof to show nullity of the marriage belongs to the plaintiff. Moreover, doubts are resolved in favor of the existence and continuation of the marriage and against its dissolution and nullity. In this regard, the Court finds that Aida's general prayer for other just and equitable remedies does not suffice as basis for the RTC to declare that she is likewise psychologically incapacitated to comply with her marital obligations.'"
At any rate, the Supreme Court, in making that pronouncement, did maintain that the marriage between AEK and her spouse should be declared void on account of the latter's psychological incapacity. It reasoned that AEK was able to sufficiently prove that her husband indeed suffered from psychological incapacity that rendered him incapable of performing the marital obligations expected of him. Thus, the case still had a happy ending despite her roller coaster journey all the way to the Supreme Court.
So what is the takeaway here? If it is clear from the evidence that both husband and wife are psychologically incapacitated, then the prayer must ask for the declaration of nullity based on the psychological incapacity of both parties, and not just one. It is true that in some cases, the petitioner may not want to be declared as such despite the evidence against him/her. Thus, despite the presence of such evidence, said party asks that only the other party be declared psychologically incapacitated. There lies the danger. What if the trial court sees things the other way around? Based on the evidence presented, it finds the respondent not psychologically incapacitated, but rather the petitioner. In this case, as clearly pointed out by the Supreme Court, the trial court cannot grant the petition for lack of prayer to declare the petitioner psychologically incapacitated as well. There you go.
The facts and quoted provisions are from Aida Egmalis-Ke-eg v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R. 249178, 13 July 2022.
