After evaluating the evidence presented by the wife herself, the Supreme Court found that the wife actually understood her marital obligations and even took steps towards fulfilling them. Hence, it gave little credence to the psychiatrist’s findings, ruling that the latter failed to sufficiently substantiate its report and specify the factual basis thereof or even state where the information was obtained.
While the Supreme Court did acknowledge that the wife was unhappy with her marriage and commiserated with her situation, the Supreme Court nonetheless said that the remedy is not to have the marriage declared void, as this remedy is only limited to certain grounds and situations, thus –
“The Court understands and commiserates with petitioner's frustration over her marital woes. However, "[t]o be tired and to give up on one's situation and on one's [spouse] are not necessarily signs of psychological illness; neither can falling out of love be so labeled. When these happen, the remedy for some is to cut the marital knot to allow the parties to go their separate ways. This simple remedy, however, is not available to us under our laws. Ours is x x x a limited remedy that addresses only a very specific situation — a relationship where no marriage could have validly been concluded because the parties, or [where] one of them, by reason of a grave and incurable psychological illness existing when the marriage was celebrated, did not appreciate the obligations of marital life and, thus, could not have validly entered into a marriage. Outside of this situation, this Court is powerless to provide any permanent remedy."