In many cases, a petition for declaration of marriage nullity is usually filed by the wife for her husband’s verbal and physical abuse, philandering, drunkenness, gambling, and failure to support the family.
This is a different story.
Bryan and Fe were officemates in a bank in Mindanao. After six months of courtship, they became sweethearts.
In early 1998 they were married in civil rites and later they had a church wedding. Their marriage produced two sons.
On Oct. 15, 2009, Bryan filed with the regional trial court (RTC) a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage against Fe. The RTC dismissed his petition on Jan. 10, 2013.
On May 7, 2015, the Court of Appeals (CA) in Mindanao reversed the RTC. The CA found Fe to be psychologically incapacitated to perform her essential marital obligations, and thus, declared her marriage to Bryan null and void.
The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), the people’s tribune, challenged the CA’s decision before the SC. It claimed that the root cause of the alleged psychological illness and its incapacitating nature was not established because Fe was never personally examined by the psychiatrist presented by Brian as his witness before the RTC.
(The Manila Bulletin opted not to publish the full names of the parties in the case and their place of residence in Mindanao. The case was docketed as SC GR No. 219709.)
In his RTC petition, Bryan told the trial court that his wife confided to him of her long-standing conflict with her mother. Thus, he said, he acceded to Fe’s request that she move out of her parents’ house and after the birth of their first child, they moved in to his parents’ residence.
Unfortunately, Brian said that Fe had a conflict with his mother and it ended up with Fe brandishing a knife at his mother’s face. They moved out of his mother’s house immediately thereafter.
Bryan testified that he was a senior officer in the bank where he and his wife were officemates. He said that Fe often contradicted the bank policies he was implementing and thus compromising his career and dignity. There was a time, he said, when Fe had to be transferred to another post in the bank as punishment.
He said Fe got discontented and decided to work abroad to which he acceded.
But he said his wife, while giving money to her mother and siblings, barely sent money for their kids such that he singlehandedly shouldered all the family expenses.
Later, he said Fe’s communications with him became less frequent. In one of their conversations, Brian told Fe that their earnings could be enough for all of them if she would not spend too much on her lifestyle. Fe, he said, decided to stay abroad for more years.
Every time Fe would return to Mindanao from abroad, Bryan said they lived separately and the last time they were together was in April 2009.
Brian’s mother testified before the trial court. She said Fe treated his son as some sort of a “waiter” as he would instruct him to get her food and water.
The psychiatrist testified that Fe was psychologically incapacitated to fulfill her essential marital obligations.
In affirming the CA’s decision which was written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last May 25, the SC said:
“Clutching at straws, petitioner (OSG) contends that the CA Decision lacks factual and legal basis solely because (the psychiatrist) never personally examined and interviewed Fe.
“’Marriage, by its very definition, necessarily involves only two persons. The totality of the behavior of one spouse during the cohabitation and marriage is generally and genuinely witnessed mainly by the other.’
“As long as the totality of evidence presented by the petitioner shows a clear case of psychological incapacity, the testimony of an expert witness... is not even needed.
“The totality of the evidence presented shows that as a wife and a mother, Fe lacks empathy for the feelings and needs of her family and is unable to identify and realize the emotional needs and feelings of other people.
“This is further bolstered by the fact that she unilaterally decided to live by herself in (abroad). Worse, despite being gainfully employed thereat, she did net even help Bryan in supporting the needs of their children.
“The CA is thus correct in holding that the gravity, incurability and the root cause of Fe's psychological incapacity were sufficiently established.
“To the Court’s mind, Bryan arguably sacrificed his career and his happiness to support Fe's career and happiness. He even helped her fulfill her dreams of living and working (abroad) while he single-handedly provided for their children.
“Sadly, Fe never appreciated Bryan's sacrifices. Worse, she told Bryan that she had no plans of going back to the Philippines because he cannot provide her with the material things she desired.
“Then, little by little, Fe stopped all communications with Bryan and started living as if she was single. Indubitably, Fe's constant nonfulfillment of her marital and maternal responsibilities speaks volumes about her character.
“The Court, thus, sees no point in compelling Bryan and Fe to stay and live together as husband and wife.
“All told, the Court's mandate to protect the inviolability of marriage as the basic foundation of our society does not preclude striking down a marital union that is ill-equipped to promote family life, as in the case.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 7, 20 I 5 and the Resolution dated July 27, 2015 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 03239-MIN are AFFIRMED. SO ORDERED.”