The traditional vow “until death do us part” in marriages “is not a blind vow of eternal condemnation for worse,” the Supreme Court (SC) said.
The SC said the wedding vow “is but a simple pledge of faithful observance by the spouses of their utter commitment of mutual love, respect, support, and fidelity.”
“Any complicity to breach their essential duties borne by dysfunctionality will not justify their continued union lest the inviolability of marriage as an institution will falter to perdition, betraying the constitutionally-enshrined purpose of sustaining the family as a basic social institution,” it stressed.
The vow in Catholic marriages was mentioned by the SC in its decision that reversed the Court of Appeals (CA) as it granted the nullity of marriage of Paula and Piolo (not their real names) that was ordered by the trial court.
The decision was written by Associate Justice Mario V. Lopez for the court’s second division in the petition docketed as GR No. 250618.
Paula and Piolo were married in 1995. Paula filed a petition for nullity of marriage in 2014 due to Paolo’s psychological incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code.
Article 36 provides that “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.”
During the trial, Paula testified on Piolo’s “irresponsibility, immaturity, insensitiveness, self-centeredness, and dependence on his parents.”
After their marriage, she said they lived with Paolo’s parents with his mother providing everything such that he found no reason to look for a permanent job.
She said she was made to do all the household chores for the entire family of Piolo.
Out of frustration, Paula said she moved to her parents’ house but Piolo never visited her so she decided to go back to her in-laws’ house to be with her husband.
When she got pregnant, she said her father rented an apartment for her and her husband. Still, she said, her husband opted to stay at his parents’ house and return to their apartment only at night.
After she gave birth, she said they returned to the house of her in-laws. She also said she expected that her husband would change his ways for their baby. But she lamented that her husband remained unemployed and took no part in looking after their child.
In 1999, Paula said she decided to move out with their son for good. She said her husband never visited them and they became totally estranged.
Later when her husband’s mother died, Paula said she discovered that Piolo was already living with another woman with whom he had sired a child.
On top of her testimony, Paula presented a clinical psychologist who conducted tests on her, and clinical interviews on Piolo’s sister and their common friend. Piolo refused to subject himself to psychological test, she said.
The psychologist’s findings showed that Piolo was suffering from dependent personality disorder that rendered him incapacitated to perform his marital obligations.
The findings also showed that Piolo’s incapacity was “grave for being chronic and pervasive, which made him socially immature, inflexible, and ill-equipped to perform his marital obligations; incurable as it is deeply ingrained in his personality structure; and with juridical antecedence as it roots from dysfunctional factors involved in his childhood, unreliable parenting style from figures around him, and unfavorable early life experiences, which affected his perceptions of himself and his environment.”
The common friend testified that Paula and Piolo have not been living together since 1999. She narrated to the court Paula’s emotional sufferings and Piolo’s neglect of the child, irresponsibility and immaturity, and his being a “mama’s boy.”
Piolo did not present any evidence. In a decision dated Nov. 23, 2015, the trial court declared Paula and Piolo’s marriage null and void under Article 36 of the Family Code.
The trial court ruled that Paula and Piolo’s marriage was a failure from inception due to husband’s inability to function rationally, emotionally, and socially towards his spouse.
On appeal, the CA reversed the ruling of the trial court in a decision issued on May 31, 2019. The CA said Paula’s testimony and the psychologist’s report merely described Piolo’s negative traits as grave without relating them to his inability to assume his essential marital obligations.
The appellate court said that Paula’s allegations were self-serving and not supported by any evidence from an independent source. Also, the CA said that the psychologist’s findings could not be given weight as there was no statement that Piolo’s dependent personality disorder was medically or clinically permanent to satisfy the requisite incurability of the incapacity.
When Paula’s motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA, she appealed the case to the SC which reversed the appellate court. The SC said:
“Thus, on the premise that psychological incapacity is a legal, not a medical concept, it is inapt to focus on rigid medical parameters to prove its juridical antecedence, incurability and gravity. Instead, the totality of clear and convincing evidence must be considered to determine that the essential requisites of the incapacity are satisfied.
“The question, therefore, is whether the totality of evidence presented in this case --the testimonies of (Paula, common friend, and the psychologist) -- is sufficient to sustain a finding that Piolo is psychologically incapacitated. We rule in the affirmative.
“Paula’s account of her experiences with Piolo, corroborated by the testimonies of the couple's long-time friend and the expert evaluation of the psychologist who examined, not only Paula and the common friend, but also the sister of Piolo, clearly and convincingly prove that Piolo’s incapacity to fulfill his marital and parental obligations are deeply-rooted from his childhood experiences carried on to his married life.
“These testimonies sufficiently established that Piolo had developed and exhibited extreme dependency upon his family, which rendered him incapable of standing on his own as a family man, and ultimately, incapacitated him to understand and discharge his essential marital and parental obligations to his wife and child.
“Evidence shows that from the beginning of the marriage, (Piolo) has not contributed -- emotionally or financially -- to their marriage. Piolo consistently seeks support and reassurance from his family, which causes pernicious effects on the decisions he made for his own family.
“For one, he would rather be with his family, especially his mother, than with his wife and child. He also constantly looks for his mother's personality in the person of his wife.
“Further, the trial court correctly observed that Piolo has no job, not because he lacks motivation or is simply lazy, but because of his childish disposition, i.e., he would rather be taken care of by his mother than assume the responsibility of looking after, and establishing his own family.
“In all, the totality of evidence presented, comprising of the psychological report, and the testimonies of Paula and the common friend, sufficiently prove Piolo’s psychological incapacity as contemplated under Article 36 of the Family Code, warranting the declaration of nullity of his marriage with Paula.
“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition for Review on Certiorari is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 31, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 26, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107786 are REVERSED, and The Decision dated November 23, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, Branch 109, in Civil Case No. R-PSY-14-18009-CV is REINSTATED.”
TAGS: #SC #Marriage nullity #Psychological incapacity #Family Code