“An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.”
This was stressed by the Court of Appeals (CA) in its decision which pointed out a Supreme Court (SC) ruling that Article 36 of the Family Code on nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity “is not to be confused with a divorce law that cuts the marital bond at the time the causes therefor manifest themselves.”
As emphasized by the SC, the CA said: “It (psychological incapacity) refers to a serious psychological illness afflicting a party even before the celebration of the marriage. It is a malady so grave and so permanent as to deprive one of awareness of the duties and responsibilities of the matrimonial bond one is about to assume.”
“Resultantly, it has always been held that mere irreconcilable differences and conflicting personalities in no way constitute psychological incapacity,” the CA added, quoting a 2019 SC decision.
Article 36 of the Family Code states: “A marriage contracted by any party who, at the time of the celebration, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
The CA decision, released this week and written by Associate Justice Myra V. Garcia Fernandez and concurred in by Associate Justices Ruben Reynaldo G. Roxas and Bonifacio S. Pascua, granted the appeal of the government through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The OSG appealed the 2016 decision issued by the Malabon City regional trial court (RTC) which granted the nullity of marriage due to psychological incapacity of couples Pepe and Pilar (not their real names).
In his petition, husband Pepe said he and his wife Pilar met in March, 1996, and got married on Jan. 31, 1997. Their son, Juan (also not his real name), was born on June 24, 1997.
Both husband and wife started working in the Middle East in 2001. But while abroad, Pepe claimed that her wife spent most of the time drinking, smoking with friends, and staying out instead of taking good care of the family.
He also claimed that when they returned to the Philippines, his wife became unfaithful by having several illicit relationships. He said they separated. He then filed his petition with the trial court.
After complying with requirements like investigation whether there was collusion between husband and wife in the filing of the petition, the trial court commenced trial.
On March 28, 2016, the trial court ruled in favor of the husband as it declared the marriage void ab initio (from the beginning). The custody of the child was awarded to the wife.
When its motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, the OSG elevated the case to the CA.
In essence, the OSG’s appeal alleged that the husband failed to establish that his wife, at the time of the celebration of their marriage, was psychologically incapacitated to comply with the essential marital obligations.
Ruling in favor of the OSG’s appeal, the CA said:
“Time and again, it has been held that ‘psychological incapacity’ has been intended by law to be confined to the most serious cases of personality disorders clearly demonstrative of an utter insensitivity or inability to give meaning and significance to the marriage.”
“Psychological incapacity must be characterized by (a) gravity, i.e., it must be grave and serious such that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in a marriage, (b) juridical antecedence, i.e., it must be rooted in the history of the party antedating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may emerge only after the marriage, and (c) incurability, i.e., it must be incurable, or even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.”
The CA said that the husband failed to sufficiently prove that his wife “is psychologically incapacitated to discharge the duties expected of a wife.”
It pointed out that “records do not show sufficient factual or legal justification that respondent's (the wife’s) sexual infidelity, emotional immaturity, and irresponsibility can be equated with psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of marriage as contemplated by law.”
“What is important is the presence of evidence that can adequately establish the party's psychological condition. The complete facts should allege the physical manifestations, if any, as are indicative of psychological incapacity at the time of the celebration of the marriage such that if the totality of evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of psychological incapacity, then actual medical examination of the person concerned need not be resorted to,” the CA added.
“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon City, Branch 169 dated March 28, 2016 granting the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage in Civil Case No. … is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A NEW ONE is entered dismissing the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage for lack of sufficient legal and factual bases,” the CA ruled.