G.R. No. 228564 - MILAGROSA VILLAREY KUSK, VS. TORBEN KUSK AND THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES.

Ruling

WHEREFORE , premises considered, the petition for the declaration of absolute nullity of marriage based on respondent's psychological incapacity filed by petitioner MILAGROSA VILLAREY KUSK against respondent TORBEN KUSK is hereby DENIED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED . [25] Milagrosa filed a Motion for Reconsideration, but it was denied by the Regional Trial Court in an Order dated November 4, 2015. [26] Milagrosa filed an appeal before the Court of Appeals, but it was denied in a Decision promulgated on December 1, 2016. [27] The dispositive portion read: WHEREFORE , in the light of the foregoing, the instant appeal is DENIED . The assailed Decision dated August 12, 2015 and the Order dated November 4, 2015 by the Quezon City Regional Trial Court, Branch 89, in Civil Case No. Q-09-66158, are hereby AFFIRMED. [28] The Court of Appeals held that the alleged irresponsibility and violent nature of Torben do not constitute psychological incapacity. While his violence may be considered as abnormal behavior, this, in itself, is not equivalent to psychological incapacity. The court stressed that there must be a link between the acts of psychological incapacity and the psychological disorder. [29] Milagrosa supposedly failed to show this link, or that the psychological incapacity existed even before they were married. [30] The court added that Milagrosa failed to elaborate on her allegation that Torben was irresponsible. Instead, her testimony supposedly showed that Torben was a good provider until he began going to bars and clubs, getting drunk, and womanizing. [31] The Court of Appeals also explained that based on the evidence and the testimony of Milagrosa, her main reason for marrying Torben was for money, and she became dissatisfied when the life she wanted did not materialize. To the court, her dissatisfaction was not enough reason to allow the nullity of her marriage to Torben based on psychological incapacity. [32] On December 22, 2016, Milagrosa filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before this Court. [33] On January 30, 2017, this Court released a Resolution requiring respondent Torben to file a comment. [34] On July 24, 2017, the Court noted that the January 30, 2017 Resolution was returned and unserved. Consequently, petitioner Milagros was required to submit the correct and present address of respondent within ten days of receipt. [35] On September 18, 2017, petitioner filed a Compliance stating that the address previously submitted to the Court was the correct address of respondent known to petitioner. [36] Since respondent could no longer be found, petitioner resorted to serve the summons by way of publication as evidenced by an Affidavit of Publication dated April 22, 2010 executed by the General Manager of Feedback Publishing. [37] On November 22, 2017, this Court issued a Notice stating that a copy of the January 30, 2017 Resolution will instead be served to the Philippine Honorary Consulate General in Copenhagen, Denmark. [38] Despi