Jay was born to a wealthy and politically influential family. He finished his master’s degree abroad.
He grew up pampered with material possessions. He was praised but was denied affection and attention by his busy parents.
In 1995 while taking up his master’s degree abroad, Jay met Beth, an employee at the Philippine embassy. Jay and Beth (not their real names) lived together abroad from 1996 to 1997. Jay returned to the Philippines to look for work.
In 1998 while Beth was vacationing in the Philippines, she and Jay got married. Their marriage begot two children.
Did Jay become a faithful and responsible husband to Beth and a loving and caring father to their two children?
Based on the Supreme Court (SC) decision written by Associate Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting and made public last Sept. 1, Jay failed as a husband and as a father. His failures prompted the SC to reverse the Court of Appeals’ (CA) ruling that overturned that issued by the trial court which nullified their marriage on a petition filed by Beth.
In her petition for nullity of marriage under the psychological incapacity provision of the Family Code, Beth said that even before their marriage she noticed that Jay was irresponsible as he would get drunk until he passes out, he would also smoke cigarettes and marijuana, and he had bouts of depression.
She told the trial court, she tried very hard to overlook Jay’s shortcomings and hope that she could change him for the better.
But while working abroad, Beth said that Jay had an affair with Joy (also not her real name). Beth said she saw in Jay’s cellular phone romantic and erotic messages from Joy.
Beth also said that Joy sent her letters and her (Joy’) picture with Jay. She said that Joy told her it was useless to stop their affair because Jay “craves’ for her in bed.
Jay admitted her affair with Joy and promised to stop it, Beth told the trial court.
Beth said that since then, Jay seldom came home and what was worse, she said, was that Jay and Joy had sexual intercourse in front of their young son.
She said they planned to settle abroad to lead a new life. She said that Jay’s behavior became more unbearable after their second child was born in 2003.
She added that Jay fell short of his financial obligations as he was often without a job and would get depressed and sleep for long hours.
In 2008, Beth and Jay parted ways. Beth said that Jay stopped communicating and giving support to her and their two children. She said jay did not care for their children even when they were sick and he did not attend their school activities. She also said Jay even hurt physically their eldest child to get him obey his orders.
Beth presented before the trial court the evaluation of a clinical psychologist who found that Jay has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
On Jay’s personality disorder, the evaluation showed, among other things, his failure to stay long in any job that did not suit his standards, his defiance to conventional/moral rules, as he engaged in a sexual affair with another woman and disregarded his vow to his wife, just to satisfy his desires, his careless disregard for the rights of others especially those of his wife and children for his constant support, and his grandiose sense of self-importance and strong sense of entitlement, as he expects to be recognized and be given special favors without assuming reciprocal responsibilities.
The psychological evaluation traced the root cause of Jay’s personality to his childhood.
In 2016, the trial court granted Beth’s petition for nullity of marriage. The court ruled that based on the totality of evidence presented, Jay is psychologically incapacitated to fulfill his marital obligations.
The trial court said that Jay’s personality disorder is characterized by juridical antecedence, as it existed long before he and Beth got married; permanent, as it is deeply imbedded in his personality; and grave, as it renders him psychologically incapacitated to perform his essential marital obligations.
In 2017, however, the CA reversed the trial court’s ruling prompting Beth to elevate her case to the SC in a petition docketed as SC GR No. 236827.
In resolving the issue, the SC said the Beth has the burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence the existence of psychological incapacity which should be “grave, incurable, and juridically antecedent” as it cited its previous decisions.
The SC said: “Gravity is understood to be the incapacity caused by a genuinely serious psychic cause. It need not be a serious or dangerous illness. However, ‘mild characterological peculiarities, mood changes, occasional emotional outbursts’ are excluded. It is not mere ‘refusal, neglect, or difficulty, much less ill will.’”
"Incurability should be viewed in its legal, and not medical, sense,” the SC said. It said: “Since psychological incapacity is not medically an illness, it is not something to be cured. The incapacity however must be so enduring and persistent with respect to a specific partner, and contemplates a situation where the couple's respective personality structures are so incompatible and antagonistic that the only result in the union would be the inevitable and irreparable breakdown of the marriage. There must be an undeniable pattern of such persisting failure to be a present, loving, faithful, respectful and supportive spouse, so as to demonstrate that there is indeed a psychological anomaly or incongruity in the spouse relative to the other.”
"Juridically antecedent,” the SC said “means that the psychological incapacity must be existing at the time of the celebration of the marriage, even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
“Proof of juridically antecedent psychological incapacity may therefore consist of testimonies describing the environment where the supposedly incapacitated spouse lived that may have led to a particular behavior,” it said.
The SC also said:
“Cases have also given weight to trial court's findings and evaluation on the existence or non-existence of a party's psychological incapacity. This is in recognition of their unique position of having observed and examined the demeanor of witnesses as they testified in court.
“As found by the trial court, Jay has already shown his propensity to abuse substances even before he and Beth got married. He is unable to stay long in any job, despite his high academic accomplishments, and failed to provide or even contribute financially to the family.
“Rather than striving for his wife and kids, he fell into several bouts of depression; he slept for long hours at home; and he withdrew from his responsibilities as he relied heavily on Beth to make decisions for the family. He also failed to fulfill his obligations as a father as he did not participate in the kids' school activities, did not care for them when they were sick, and even resorted to physical punishment.
“He engaged in extra-marital relations despite having been given by Beth chances to reform. He even had sexual intercourse with his mistress in front of the couple's minor child, which shows not only his perversity but also his lack of understanding, if not absolute callousness, and disregard for his fundamental duties to his wife and children.
“As if this was not enough, his extra-marital affair even subjected his wife to ridicule, taunting, and mockery from his mistress. Consistent with his disregard and lack of concern for his responsibilities as a husband and father, Jay has neither communicated with Beth and the children nor given them any financial support since their separation in 2008.
“Based on the totality of evidence in this case, the Court finds that Beth was able to show that Jay was psychologically incapacitated at the time he got married to her and remained to be so thereafter.
“He is non-cognitive of the basic marital covenants such as respect, fidelity, mutual love, help, and support to each other. The trial court was correct in granting Beth’s petition to declare her marriage with Jay null and void ab initio (from the beginning) on the ground of psychological capacity.
“The Court has previously held that the dissolution of marital bonds on the ground of the psychological incapacity of either spouse does not amount to a demolition of the foundation of families.
“There is actually no marriage to speak of since it is void from the beginning. Inasmuch as the Constitution regards marriage as an inviolable social institution and the foundation of the family, courts must not hesitate to void marriages that are patently ill-equipped by reason of psychic causes inherent in the person of the spouses.
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The marriage between petitioner (Beth) and respondent (Jay) is declared void ab initio. The Decision dated June 30, 2017 and the Resolution dated Jan. 3, 2018 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107159 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision dated Jan. 2016 of the (trial court) in Civil Case No. Q-09-65639 is REINSTATED. SO ORDERED.”