This Christmas season, the SC reiterates its admonition to husbands and wives: “An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage.”
“As marriage is the foundation of the family and an inviolable social institution, it is protected by the State and cannot be easily dissolved at the whim of the parties,” the SC stressed as it cited its previous rulings.
It also cautioned that “those who come to court in an attempt to severe the marital vinculum bears the heavy burden of showing that there is a serious ground to nullify the same.”
The SC’s decision, written by Associate Justice Ramon Paul L. Hernando and made public last Dec. 21, reversed the 2014 ruling of the Court of Appeals (CA) which upheld the trial court’s 2011 order that nullified the marriage of Julius and Jenny (not their real names) based on Article 36 (psychological incapacity) of the Family Code.
It granted the appeal of the government, through the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), against the CA’s ruling.
Julius and Jenny were classmates in a university in Manila. They became sweethearts and later decided to get married. They begot three children.
The marriage, which was blissful at the start, turned sour. Julius complained that Jenny was “too direct, outspoken and domineering.”
He also alleged that his sexual relationship with his wife “was no longer satisfying because she always wanted it quick and as if devoid of feelings.”
Jenny almost always promised to mend her attitude towards Julius.
The bigger conflict started in 2003 when Julius attended a workshop in the Visayas where he developed a “liking” for a lady who lived there. While his feelings were not reciprocated by the lady, the duo continued to communicate.
When Jenny became suspicious, she started to secretly check on Julius’ cellular telephone. Feeling betrayed, the angry Julius packed his things and stayed in a hotel. Jenny accused him of cohabiting with his mistress.
Julius returned home thereafter. However, he claimed his relationship with his wife deteriorated. He left their home again on his claim that he wanted to spare their children from witnessing his fights with his wife.
He consulted a clinical psychologist and thereafter filed in 2008 a petition for nullity of marriage based on psychological incapacity.
The psychological and marital evaluation conducted the psychologist showed that Julius “is suffering from a Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder.”
Julius’ personality disorder was categorized by the psychologist as “serious, permanent, incurable, and interferes with his ability to comply with marital obligations, and that the personality disorder predates the marriage and only became apparent after.”
Jenny opposed the petition which “failed to specifically allege complete facts exhibiting the incapacity of either or both parties from complying with the essential obligations of marriage and such incapacity existed from the time of the celebration of the marriage and manifested only after its celebration.”
She pointed out she was open to reconciliation because she still loves her husband and remained committed to their marriage.
The trial court dissolved their marriage. Jenny filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied. The government, through the OSG, appealed the case to the CA which affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The OSG appealed to the SC.
The OSG told the SC that the evidence adduced by Julius were insufficient to prove that he is psychologically incapacitated to perform essential marital obligations that warrants a declaration of his marriage void ab initio (from the start).
Julius reiterated his evidence that he is suffering from psychological incapacity due to his personality disorder that is “serious, permanent, incurable and already existed even prior to the marriage.”
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 obligation of marriage, shall likewise be void even if such incapacity becomes manifest only after its solemnization.”
Resolving the petition, the SC said:
“Jurisprudence requires that psychological incapacity should refer to no less than a mental -- not merely physical -- incapacity that causes one to be truly incognitive of the basic marital covenants that concomitantly must be assumed and discharged by the parties to the marriage.
“It should refer to the most serious cases of personality disorders that is so grave and permanent that clearly deprive a party of awareness of the duties and responsibilities one assumes when getting married.
“Psychological incapacity, as a ground to nullify a marriage, must be characterized by (a) gravity, (b) juridical antecedence, and (c) incurability.36 Expounding on these characteristics means: that the incapacity should be grave or serious in a way that the party would be incapable of carrying out the ordinary duties required in marriage; it must be rooted in the history of the party predating the marriage, although the overt manifestations may only emerge after the marriage; and it must be incurable or, even if it were otherwise, the cure would be beyond the means of the party involved.
“We find the evidence presented before the lower court insufficient to prove respondent's (Julius) supposed psychological incapacity. The trial court's complete reliance on the Judicial Affidavit of the respondent and the psychological examination conducted... on him to establish psychological incapacity is not enough to hurdle the burden of proof required in the dissolution and declaration of nullity of a marriage.
“As keenly observed by petitioner (OSG), the trial court's ruling is a mere summary of the allegations, testimonies, and pieces of evidence presented by the respondent.
“The RTC (regional trial court) did not make its own factual findings. There was no actual assessment of the allegations made, witnesses presented, and evidence offered that will serve as a basis for its legal conclusion of psychological incapacity.
“The trial court relied heavily on the findings and conclusions made by ... about the respondent's psychological incapacity. However, these observations and conclusions are not comprehensive enough to support a conclusion that a psychological incapacity existed and prevented the respondent from complying with the essential obligations of marriage.
“There was no identification of the root cause of respondent's Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder with Narcissistic Traits and that it existed at the commencement of the marriage. There was also no discussion of the incapacitating nature of the supposed disorder and how it affected the capacity of respondent in fulfilling his matrimonial duties due to some illness that is psychological in nature.
“Clearly, the combined testimonies of respondent and... which became the basis of the trial court in concluding psychological incapacity do not sufficiently prove the root cause, gravity, and incurability of the alleged condition of the respondent.
“To support a petition for the severance of marital tie, it is not enough to show that a party alleged to be psychologically incapacitated had difficulty in complying with his marital obligations, or was unwilling to perform these obligations.
“It is indispensable for the party moving for the dissolution of marriage to present proof of a natal or supervening disabling factor that effectively incapacitated him or her from complying with his or her essential marital obligations.
“No such proof was presented in this case. On the contrary, respondent's testimony reveals that he is capable of complying with the essential duties and obligations of a married life.
“In fine, We hold that there was no sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the alleged psychological incapacity of the respondent.
“WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The challenged May 29, 2014 Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 98297 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Petition for declaration of nullity of marriage is DISMISSED for lack of merit. SO ORDERED.”
TAGS: #SC #Marriage Nullity