“Love will always flow through our lives in this inconsistent, unknowable way, and we cannot press pause on the joyful bits, nor fast-forward the suffering,” said the Supreme Court (SC) as it quoted from noted journalist-author Natasha Lunn’s “Conversations on Love.”
But the SC said: “Yet, in marriage, the reality is that a person may be truly psychologically incapable for the other, and it is best to sever the relationship as there is no point in trying to restore what is broken to begin with.”
With its declaration, the SC reversed the Court of Appeals’ (CA) 2012 decision which set aside the 2008 trial court’s ruling that granted the petition for nullity of marriage filed in 2001 by Anton against his wife Bel.
(While the SC did not redact the full names of the parties in the case (docketed as GR No. 203992), the Manila Bulletin decided not to publish their full names to protect them and, especially, their children).
In a decision made public last April 4 and written by Justice Mario V. Lopez, the SC said:
“Our laws pertaining to marriage and family could not be expected to address every incarnation or nuance of husband-and- wife relationships.
“Nevertheless, in interpreting the provisions relating to the declaration of nullity of marriage, courts must discern those relationships that are patently ill-equipped to cope and adapt to the complexities of marriage.
“In this case, Anton and Bel have been separated in fact since 1998 and it has not been shown that they have changed for the better to compel them to remain in a marriage.
“Truly, their union should not be upheld solely for the sake of permanence because doing so will only destroy the very essence of marriage as an institution.”
In his petition for nullify of marriage, Anton said he and his wife were married in 1980. They have four children. He claimed he and his wife have been separate since 1998 when her wife drove him out of their conjugal home.
He alleged that he and his wife were both psychologically incapacitated to comply with basic marital obligations. He also claimed that they did not observe mutual love and respect and also failed to provide the necessary emotional, psychological, and moral support for each other.
While Anton admitted he had "flings" with other women during their marriage, he said his wife made the situation more difficult as she was constantly nagging about it. There was a time that he tried to avoid philandering but instead of supporting him, his wife pasted pictures of the woman everywhere inside their house.
Also, he alleged that aside from sending obscene fax messages to his office, his wife used their children to bring him unsealed letters which contain brutal and insulting words.
In 2000, the trial court granted their petition for separation of properties.
Bel denied her husband’s allegations. She told the court that she did not drive Anton out of their home because he voluntarily left their conjugal dwelling to pursue his womanizing and perennial nocturnal gambling.
She also said that her husband would only come home in the wee hours of the morning only to leave again. There were even times when he would threaten and harass her, she said, to the extent of humiliating her in front of their children and neighbors.
Also presented during the trial was a psychiatrist who conducted a mental status assessment and clinical psychiatric interviews with Anton and the couple’s eldest daughter. Bel was also interviewed in several sessions when she brought their second daughter for consultation and treatment of her depression.
The psychiatrist recommended the nullification of marriage of Anton and Bel due to psychological incapacity of the spouses.
Bel disagreed with the psychiatrist’s recommendation. She told the court that her disclosures on her marriage with Anton were taken out of context.
The couple’s eldest daughter was also presented as a witness. The daughter testified that she knew about the girlfriends of her father. She also told the court that she saw the pain caused to her mother by her father's illicit relations.
While the trial court granted the nullity of marriage, the CA reversed the decision on a petition filed by the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG).
The CA ruled that the report done by the psychiatrist merely confirmed the couple’s marital problems, but it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of the spouses' alleged psychological incapacity.
With his motion for reconsideration denied by the CA, Anton filed a petition with the SC. The OSG opposed the petition as it insisted that the infidelity must be a manifestation of a disordered personality that makes the psychologically incapacitated spouse completely unable to discharge the basic obligations of marriage, which is not so in petitioner's (Anton) case.
Granting Anton’s petition, the SC said:
“Certainly, one cannot deny that the relationship between the parents has pervasive effects on the family, especially on the younger children. In any case, even if we disregard the clinical interviews of Bel, the bulk of evidence consisting of the interviews and testimony in open court of both Anton and their eldest daughter, and the letters written by Bel to Anton which were part of psychiatric assessment, all support the conclusion that Anton was able to discharge the burden of proof required to nullify his marriage to Bel.
“Under Article 68 of the Family Code, the ‘husband and wife are obliged to live together, observe mutual love, respect and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.’
“Clearly, the law itself recognizes fidelity as the norm and a spouse should not be made to settle for anything less than absolute faithfulness from the other. This stems from the nature of marriage being a ‘special contract’ of an exclusive partnership between a man and a woman.
“While it is true that infidelity is a ground for legal separation, the same may also be an indication of a psychological incapacity if, for the same reason, one is completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of marriage.
“Of course, this is not to say that the Court will intuitively declare a marriage void for a single act of marital indiscretion. Infidelity is not measured in terms of frequency. To be considered as a form of psychological incapacity, infidelity must satisfy the requirements of (1) gravity or severity, (2) antecedence, and (3) legal incurability or persistence during the marriage.
“In this case, Anton's Chronic infidelity is not only comprised of multiple illicit amorous relations. As detailed in the Psychiatric Evaluation, his affairs are not casual mistakes as these were shown to be deeply rooted in his psychopathology which was in place even before his marriage.
“Contrary to the CA's observation, the psychiatrist was able to demonstrate how Anton's childhood and adolescent years - which were spent dealing with his philandering father and impervious mother, heavily affected the way he perceives romantic relationships. Anton's father sired eleven children, with four other women, and was never discreet about his illicit affairs.
“Anton mirrored his father's ways. As a young adult, he engaged in several short-lived, overlapping relationships, including the one with Bel. They dated when he still had another girlfriend. After two years, Bel got pregnant, so he was forced to marry her. However, the marriage did not prove to be a catalyst for Anton as he repeatedly committed marital indiscretions.
“Soon enough, the spouses fell into a pernicious cycle of discovery, reprisal, forgiveness, and then a new illicit affair. Clearly, Anton's inability to maintain a monogamous relationship with his wife can be traced to his dysfunctional childhood.
“As for Bel’s retaliatory acts, i.e., sending vulgar fax messages and hateful letters, and evicting Anton from the conjugal home, the Court sees that these are typical of a woman treated with contempt.
“Bel was a college student when she got pregnant. She got married to Anton and devoted herself to becoming a wife and mother to their kids. She wanted someone to grow old with and exerted efforts to have a stable and healthy home for Anton and their children.
“However, when Bel discovered her husband's illicit affairs, she was seething with anger that her nurturing ways turned into rage. Admittedly, Bel’s vengeful stance contributed to the collapse of the marriage as it aggravated Anton's psychological incapacity.
“Despite Bel’s belligerent attitude and verbal offensives towards Anton, the Court rules that these do not amount to psychological incapacity because these only existed during the marriage, particularly, as a reaction to Anton's philandering.
“ACCORDINGLY, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 22, 2012 and Resolution dated Oct. 3, 2012 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 93554, which dismissed the Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Marriage filed by petitioner Anton, is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The marriage between Anton and Bel is declared VOID on ground of Anton's psychological incapacity. SO ORDERED.”