“A spouse’s constant nagging, suspicion, jealousy, and anger do not equate to being truly incognitive in performing one’s basic marital duties, as mere difficulty is not the incapacity contemplated by law,” the Court of Appeals (CA) declared.

In a decision, the CA quoted a Supreme Court (SC) ruling which said: “We cannot leave the impression that marriage may be easily entered into when it suits the needs of the parties, and just as easily nullified when stressful, difficult, or inconvenient.“

It also pointed that the SC stressed: “An unsatisfactory marriage is not a null and void marriage and a person’s refusal to assume essential marital duties and obligations does not constitute psychological incapacity.”

The CA, in a decision written by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas Jr., dismissed the petition filed by Jojo against his wife Marie challenging a trial court’s ruling that denied his petition for nullity of marriage under the psychological incapacity provision in the Family Code. (Manila Bulletin decided to identify the parties only by their nicknames to protect their family.)

Jojo and Marie were married in 2012.  Marie is the sister of one of Jojo’s students.  

He said that during their marriage, she would spend her income only for herself, usually for shopping. He also said that she is a jealous person, and in one instance she got his cellular telephone to block every person who talked to him.  He added that she even nagged him inside the school premises within earshot of his colleagues.

He said that when they moved to his parents’ house, she refused to help in the household chores and would get angry when reminded to do so.

He pointed out that despite attempts to talk about their differences, his wife did not change.  He said he later found out that his wife was pregnant with another man. (There were no details on the pregnancy in the decision except the confirmation testified to by Jojo’s aunt).

During the trial, Jojo presented the testimonies of his co-teacher and a psychologist. His co-teacher affirmed the allegations against his wife.
The psychologist testified that based on her analysis, Marie suffered from a narcissistic type personality disorder, the root cause of which was her environment influences, e.g., she was spoiled while growing up; her father left their family; she was carefree in her ways. She described Marie’s condition as serious, grave, and incurable and recommended the nullification of marriage.

The regional trial court (RTC) dismissed Jojo’s petition. It ruled that Jojo’s characterization of his wife as “controlling, lazy, and extravagant,” although “reprehensible and irritating,” were “insufficient to constitute psychological incapacity.” Marie’s marital infidelity was also insufficient to have the marriage annulled, the RTC said.

The RTC also said that the psychologist’s report “failed to explain that said acts [of Marie] are manifestations of a disordered personality which make the respondent completely unable to discharge the essential obligations of the marital state.”

Thus, the RTC ruled that “the totality of the evidence of the petitioner (Jojo) failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that the respondent suffered from psychological incapacity. The couple simply drifted apart as a result of their irreconcilable differences and basic incompatibility.”

When his motion for reconsideration was denied by the trial court, Jojo elevated the case before the CA.

In dismissing the petition, the CA said:

“The petitioner claimed that the respondent’s (Marie) alleged psychological incapacity was brought upon and rooted in her upbringing, particularly, that she was raised in a broken home, her father was living with another woman, her mother worked in a canteen that turns into a ‘beerhouse’ at night.

“Aside from one statement in his judicial affidavit, however, no other pieces of evidence were offered to prove such allegations. In fact, these alleged historical, personal circumstances of the respondent were not even explained and thoroughly narrated when the petitioner was called to the witness stand.

“The testimonies of the other witnesses presented by the petitioner are also insufficient to support a finding of psychological incapacity. As a rule, ordinary witnesses need to have been present in the life of the spouses before they contracted marriage in order that the witnesses may testify on conduct and behavior that they have consistently observed from the supposedly psychologically incapacitated spouse, including his or her past experiences or environment while growing up.

“Similarly, we reject the argument that the respondent was psychologically incapacitated based on the psychologist’s findings. Her (psychologist) report provided a scant description of respondent’s background and significant experiences during childhood.

“In sum, the totality of the evidence presented by the petitioner failed to clearly and convincingly establish that the respondent’s enduring personality structure rendered her incapable of comprehending and discharging her marital obligations.

“Wherefore, the appeal is denied. It is so ordered.”