MANILA, Philippines?For going to court with an argument culled from Wikipedia, the Office of the Solicitor General has lost its case in the Court of Appeals asking for the reversal of a trial court's nullification of a couple's 19-year marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity.

?The Republic, with all the resources and manpower at its disposal, has all the means with which to counter the expert testimony offered by (the ex-wife). Most certainly, the Republic has access to government institutions, i.e., National Center for Mental Health, which has qualified psychiatric experts whose opinion it could have sought to evaluate (the woman) and her spouse,? the Court of Appeals special 15th division said in a 13-page decision.

Associate Justice Magdangal de Leon penned the decision promulgated last month. Associate Justices Mario Lopez and Manuel Barrios concurred.

The Inquirer decided to withhold the names of the parties in the case so as not to intrude into their privacy.

But how the OSG made its attempt to preserve this particular marriage and family before the Court, using an online source which itself has a disclaimer that the information it contains has not been reviewed by experts, qualified their story as of public interest.

The OSG represents the State in annulment cases as it is the State's interest to preserve and protect the sanctity of marriage and the family.

In annulment cases, the OSG enters an appearance in court to ensure that there is no collusion between husband and wife when they seek to annul their union or to see to it that the nullification of a marriage was based on valid grounds.

Court records showed that, married in 1988 with three grown children, the union of this particular couple was nullified by a Quezon City Regional Trial Court in August 2007 on the ground of psychological incapacity.

The OSG elevated the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, ?alleging absence of sufficient evidence to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity.?

The ex-wife, as the petitioner, presented to the trial court an expert witness, Dr. Crispina Penequito, who testified that she examined the couple and ?concluded that both parties suffered from psychological incapacity.?

According to Dr. Penequito, the petitioner was suffering from an ?'anti-social reaction' under the classification of 'sociopathic personalities' which is a type of 'personality or character disorder'?.

On the other hand, her ex-husband was diagnosed as suffering from an ?inadequate personality?, which falls under the personality pattern disorder.

The negative attitude of people suffering from this, according to the expert, ?causes the person to flee from his responsibilities, abandoning his duties, including that of being head of the family.?

In its motion for reconsideration, the OSG sought to impeach Dr. Penequito's testimony as an expert witness.

But in her Brief, the ex-wife said that Dr. Penequito's expert witness ?may only be impeached by introducing contrary evidence or pointing out inconsistencies in her testimony.?

The Court noted that the doctor was not cross-examined to determine inconsistencies in her testimony or the accuracy of her psychiatric report.

Moreover, the ex-husband-respondent and the OSG, as the oppositor-appellant, did not present any contradictory evidence, the Court said.

The Court added that in her brief, the ex-wife pointed out that ?the authority alluded to by oppositor-appellant, the 'Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders DSM-IV-TR,' was taken from an Internet website commonly known as Wikipedia.?

The ex-wife argued that Wikipedia itself contains a disclaimer which said that it ?makes no guarantee of validity.?

As an ?online open-content collaborative encyclopedia,? Wikipedia allows persons or groups with Internet access to change its content for the purpose of developing a ?common source of human knowledge.?

The ex-wife quoted the website itself, in her brief, which said: ?Wikipedia is not uniformly peer reviewed; while readers may correct errors or engage in casual peer review, they have not legal duty to do so and thus all information read here is without any implied warranty of fitness for any purpose or use whatsoever.?

The Court said in its decision that it found ?incredible... if not a haphazard attempt, on the part of the appellant to impeach an expert witness, with, as pointed out by (the ex-wife), unreliable information. This is certainly unacceptable evidence, nothing short of a mere allegation totally unsupported by authority.?