A wife – who, because of love, had to endure the verbal and physical abuses of her drunkard, heavy gambler, and philandering husband – has been freed from the marital bond that was solemnized almost 17 years ago.
Her petition against the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed in 2019 the trial court’s 2015 ruling that nullified her marriage, was granted by the Supreme Court (SC) in a decision made public last March 4.
The SC decision was written by Associate Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez of the court’s first division in the case docketed as GR No. 247985.
In granting her petition and reversing the CA’s ruling, the SC reiterated its 2009 declaration:
“In dissolving marital bonds on account of either party's psychological incapacity, the Court is not demolishing the foundation of families, but it is actually protecting the sanctity of marriage, because it refuses to allow a person afflicted with a psychological disorder, who cannot comply with or assume the essential marital obligations, from remaining in that sacred bond.”
(The Manila Bulletin opted not to print the names of the parties and witnesses in this nullity of marriage case.)
Case records showed that the couples were high school sweethearts. The wife, “despite having doubts, as her boyfriend had been unfaithful and engaged in heavy gambling during the course of their relationship, chose to remain with him.” They were married in 2005. They do not have children.
On July 24, 2012, the wife filed before the RTC a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage under Article 36 of the Family Code on psychological incapacity.
The wife alleged that her husband’s personality made him completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
She told the trial court that as early as a week after their wedding, she was surprised to discover that the monetary gifts they had received, which was intended for their savings account, were used up by her husband for his gambling and cockfighting.
As a result of his excessive spending without maintaining gainful employment, she was forced to work twice as hard to provide for their needs, she said.
To make matters worse, the wife said she was subjected to physical and verbal abuse every time she could not give money to her husband. In many instances, she lamented, her husband would punch her and point a knife at her.
She said she was forced to give P2,000 monthly support to her husband’s mother which she did despite her protest. She also said her husband would leave their conjugal home for days to spend his time with his other women.
She also told the trial court that in 2008, her husband borrowed a total of P300,000 from two persons without her knowledge. When her husband could not pay the loans, she was threatened by three men. She said she had to sell her jewelry just to settle her husband’s loans.
Due to her sufferings from verbal and physical abuse, she said she was confined in a hospital for serious trauma. In April 2012, she decided to leave their conjugal home.
On April 8, 2012, she said she received a text message from her husband: “Kapag hinde ka magbigay ng pera sa akin sasabuyan ko ng gasoline ang bahay ng nanay mo at susunugin ko, kaya mo pa ba ang pagsustento sa akin kung hinde mo na kaya bigyan mo na lang ako ng pera at maghiwalay na tayo. (If you will not give me money, I will pour gasoline in your mother’s house and will burn it, so just give me money and we will just part ways)."
Accompanied by her mother, she said they reported the threats to the police and the barangay which issued a Barangay Protection Order (BPO).
She submitted herself to psychological assessment. The psychiatrist, she said, also interviewed her husband in a telephone conversation. The psychiatrist’s findings, which she submitted to the trial court, recommended the grant of nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity of the husband. Her mother also testified in court.
In his answer, the husband rejected impressions of being psychologically incapacitated. He did not deny what he called their misunderstandings “but these were nowhere near serious and would always end in reconciliation.” He denied the allegations of verbal and physical abuses and his being a heavy gambler and a philanderer.
On Nov. 11, 2015, the RTC rendered the marriage void ab initio (from the start) under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The RTC found the wife and her witnesses credible. The trial court ruled that the parties’ marriage “was not founded on mutual love, respect, support, and especially, fidelity.”
It took note of the psychiatrist’s report that the husband suffers from Anti-Social Personality Disorder. It also noted that reconciliation would be highly improbable, as the parties have been separated since 2012.
The husband appealed to the CA which reversed the trial court’ ruling. The CA said that the totality of evidence presented by the wife was insufficient to show that the husband was psychologically incapacitated.
The CA also said that the report of the psychiatrist “was highly suspect and skewed, as the information was mainly obtained from the wife’s mother,” while the telephone conversation with the husband “was too brief to be considered as a thorough and conclusive evaluation.”
Aggrieved, the wife filed a petition with the SC. After discussing various decided cases on marriage nullity based on Article 326 of the Family Code, the SC said:
“Here, petitioner (wife) has sufficiently overcome the onus probandi (burden of proof) to prove the nullity of her marriage with respondent (husband) via clear and convincing evidence.
“Data gathered from the testimonies of petitioner, her mother, expert witness (psychiatrist), and even respondent himself, reveals that the latter developed traits such as untrustworthiness, irresponsibility, aggressiveness, lack of compassion and remorse antedating the marriage.
“As admitted by respondent himself, a BP0 was indeed issued on April 25, 2012, against him due to verbal abuse. Records further prove that respondent had taken out numerous loans, even pawning his wife's jewelry and selling (to wife’s mother) his firearm for his selfish endeavors.
“All this he did without gaining employment, leaving his wife to fully support their family. Most telling is the fact that petitioner and respondent have been separated de facto since 2012. Having been apart for almost ten years, absent any clear showing of an intent to cohabit, there is enough indication to conclude that the marriage has been so strained that it has long been without peace and harmony -- ideals which the State so aims to protect.
“All told, the psychological report, taken together with the documentary and testimonial evidence presented, warrant the declaration that respondent is psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations at the time of his marriage to petitioner.
“The characteristics he exhibited before and during the marriage are more than just a mere difficulty, refusal, or neglect on his part. The parties having been living separately for almost 10 years likewise shows an already impaired relationship that is beyond repair; neither do the facts demonstrate the capacity of the spouses to accept the other which is indispensable to the marital relationship.
“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the instant petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals, dated Feb. 26, 2019 in CA-G.R. CV No. 108537, is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated Nov.11, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court, … in Civil Case No. 12-9738 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.”